Opinion
06-16-2017
In the Matter of Gene MAJCHRZAK, Petitioner–Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS and Uponor Infra Corporation, Respondents–Respondents.
Law Office of Lindy Korn, PLLC, Buffalo (Charles L. Miller, II, of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant. Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP, Buffalo (Vincent M. Miranda of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent Uponor Infra Corporation.
Law Office of Lindy Korn, PLLC, Buffalo (Charles L. Miller, II, of Counsel), for Petitioner–Appellant.
Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP, Buffalo (Vincent M. Miranda of Counsel), for Respondent–Respondent Uponor Infra Corporation.
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 seeking to annul the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) that there was no probable cause to believe that petitioner's employer, respondent Uponor Infra Corporation (Uponor), discriminated and retaliated against him. We reject petitioner's contention that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition.
"Where, as here, SDHR ‘renders a determination of no probable cause without holding a hearing, the appropriate standard of review is whether the probable cause determination was arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis' " (Matter of Napierala v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 140 A.D.3d 1746, 1747, 32 N.Y.S.3d 797 ; see Matter of McDonald v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 147 A.D.3d 1482, 1482, 47 N.Y.S.3d 194 ). "Probable cause exists only when, after giving full credence to the complainant's version of the events, there is some evidence of unlawful discrimination ... There must be a factual basis in the evidence sufficient to warrant a cautious [person] to believe that discrimination had been practiced" (Matter of Mambretti v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 129 A.D.3d 1696, 1697, 12 N.Y.S.3d 692, lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 909, 2015 WL 6181976 [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Although petitioner's " factual showing must be accepted as true on a probable cause determination" (id. ), "full credence need not be given to petitioner's allegation in his complaint that he was discriminated against on the basis of his [age or] disability, for this is the ultimate conclusion, which must be determined solely by [SDHR] based upon all of the facts and circumstances" (Matter of Vadney v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 93 A.D.2d 935, 936, 462 N.Y.S.2d 311 ; see McDonald, 147 A.D.3d at 1483, 47 N.Y.S.3d 194; Matter of Smith v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 142 A.D.3d 1362, 1363–1364, 38 N.Y.S.3d 651 ).
Here, we conclude that SDHR properly investigated petitioner's complaint and provided him with a full and fair opportunity to present evidence on his behalf and to rebut the evidence presented by Uponor (see Matter of Witkowich v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 56 A.D.3d 1170, 1170, 866 N.Y.S.2d 907, lv. denied 12 N.Y.3d 702, 876 N.Y.S.2d 349, 904 N.E.2d 504 ). We further conclude that SDHR's determination is supported by a rational basis and is not arbitrary or capricious (see McDonald, 147 A.D.3d at 1483, 47 N.Y.S.3d 194; Witkowich, 56 A.D.3d at 1170, 866 N.Y.S.2d 907 ; Matter of Murphy v. Russell Sage Coll., 134 A.D.2d 716, 717, 521 N.Y.S.2d 199 ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.