From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Concha v. Gatling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 2, 2004
13 A.D.3d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

4797.

December 2, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered September 22, 2003, which dismissed this proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent's determination and order after review affirming a determination and order after investigation which found no probable cause, and denied petitioner's motion to amend and recalendar the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.


A petition to challenge the administrative finding of no probable cause was previously dismissed on default in November 2002. Petitioner neither moved to vacate that default nor commenced a new proceeding in accordance with the statutory requirements ( see Matter of Gershel v. Porr, 89 NY2d 327). Even if petitioner had properly commenced a new proceeding, it would have been barred as untimely (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-123).

Were we to review respondent's determination of no probable cause, we would find it rationally based. Petitioner was given a full and fair opportunity to present his case ( Matter of Mitchell v. Commissioner of Human Rights, 234 AD2d 128). The evidence credited by respondent revealed that petitioner was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.


Summaries of

Concha v. Gatling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 2, 2004
13 A.D.3d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Concha v. Gatling

Case Details

Full title:HARRY DE LA CONCHA, Appellant, v. PATRICIA L. GATLING, as Commissioner and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 2, 2004

Citations

13 A.D.3d 74 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
784 N.Y.S.2d 871

Citing Cases

Okoumou v. Community

Administrative Code § 8-123 (h) (emphasis added).de la Concha v Gatling, 13 AD3d 74 (1st Dept 2004). It is…

Hollander v. City of N.Y.

This is so even though petitioner is now advancing a different theory of invidious discrimination-age…