Opinion
2014-01-8
In the Matter of Antonio CUTRI, appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, et al., respondents.
Stern & Stern, Brooklyn, N.Y. (David Lyle Stern of counsel), for appellant. Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondent New York City Commission on Human Rights.
Stern & Stern, Brooklyn, N.Y. (David Lyle Stern of counsel), for appellant. Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Karen M. Griffin of counsel), for respondent New York City Commission on Human Rights.
In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8–123 to review a determination of the New York City Commission on Human Rights dated February 17, 2011, which, inter alia, awarded the complainant Elizabeth Lukasiewicz compensatory damages in the sum of $31,500 ($30,000 for mental anguish and $1,500 for economic loss), awarded the complainant Pamela Haley compensatory damages for mental anguish in the sum of $20,000, and imposed a civil penalty in the sum of $20,000, the petitioner appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.), dated February 22, 2012, which granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the proceeding, confirmed the awards of compensatory damages and the civil penalty, and in effect, dismissed the proceeding.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Deference must be accorded to the assessment of damages by the New York City Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the Commission), in view of its special experience in weighing the merit and value of mental anguish claims ( see Matter of New York State Div. of Human Rights v. Caprarella, 82 A.D.3d 773, 775, 917 N.Y.S.2d 704). The award of $30,000 to Elizabeth Lubasiewicz for mental anguish and the award of $20,000 to Pamela Haley for mental anguish were supported by their testimony ( see Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 78 N.Y.2d 207, 218–219, 573 N.Y.S.2d 49, 577 N.E.2d 40; Matter of Mateo v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 306 A.D.2d 484, 761 N.Y.S.2d 517), and are comparable to other awards for similar injuries ( see Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v. Muia, 176 A.D.2d 1142, 575 N.Y.S.2d 957; Szpilzinger v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 160 A.D.2d 196, 554 N.Y.S.2d 4). Additionally, the civil penalty was appropriate ( see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8–126[a]; Matter of 119–121 E. 97th St. Corp. v. New York City Comm. on Human Rights, 220 A.D.2d 79, 81, 642 N.Y.S.2d 638).
As the Commission bears responsibility for rendering the ultimate determination, it was not required to adopt the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the proceeding as to the amount of damages ( see Matter of Hartley Catering, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 66 A.D.3d 1022, 886 N.Y.S.2d 822; Matter of Orlic v. Gatling, 44 A.D.3d 955, 844 N.Y.S.2d 366; Matter of R & B Autobody and Radiator, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 31 A.D.3d 989, 819 N.Y.S.2d 599; Matter of Jenkins v. New York City Dept. of Transp., 26 A.D.3d 176, 808 N.Y.S.2d 683).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit. MASTRO, J.P., LOTT, AUSTIN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.