The IAS Court correctly held that the City has authority to create a private cause of action for unlawful discrimination with punitive damages as a remedy, and that the ordinance enacted, Administrative Code § 8-502, is not inconsistent with the State Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15). The authority specifically conferred on municipalities under N.Y. Constitution, article IX, § 2 (c) (ii) (10) to enact laws "whether or not they relate to the property, affairs or government of such local government" is to be liberally construed (NY Const, art IX, § 3 [c]; Municipal Home Rule Law § 51), is broad enough to include the creation of a private cause of action (Karom v. Altarac, 3 A.D.2d 925), and makes inapposite traditional limitations upon the exercise of "police powers" as interpreted by the authorities cited by defendants (see, e.g., 6 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 22.01 [3d rev ed], and cases cited therein; McCrory Corp. v. Fowler, 319 Md. 12, 570 A.2d 834). Absent from Municipal Home Rule Law § 11, which lists the areas in which local governments may not legislate, is any language relating to the creation of private causes of action, notwithstanding the legislative overruling of Karom v. Altarac (supra; see, Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 [j]). In the absence of a specific prohibition, the creation of private causes of action in favor of its citizens falls within the police powers of the municipality (see also, 1987 Atty Gen [Inf Opns] 111; 1979 Opns St Comp No. 79-812).

The State Human Rights Law was not intended to preempt the field of antidiscrimination legislation (see, New York State Club Assn. v. City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 211, affd 487 U.S. 1), and the local law in issue should not be deemed inconsistent therewith simply because it provides an additional penalty in the form of punitive damages (see, e.g., Matter of Bri-Mar Corp. v Town Bd., 74 N.Y.2d 826; People v. Judiz, 38 N.Y.2d 529). As long as a local law neither prohibits what would be permissible under State law nor imposes prerequisites or additional restrictions on rights granted under State law so as to inhibit the operation of the State's general laws, it cannot be said to be inconsistent with the State law (see, New York State Club Assn. v. City of New York, supra, at 217, quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. Town of Red Hook, 60 N.Y.2d 99, 108, quoting F.T.B. Realty Corp. v. Goodman, 300 N.Y. 140, 148; Jancyn Mfg. Corp. v. County of Suffolk, 71 N.Y.2d 91, 100). Thoreson v Penthouse Intl. ( 80 N.Y.2d 490) merely construed the State Human Rights Law as not providing for an award of punitive damages, and did not, as defendants argue, announce a public policy prohibition against punitive damages as a remedy for discriminatory practices.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.