Opinion
CA 01-02175
June 14, 2002.
Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Centra, J.), entered December 4, 2000, which denied the petition seeking to annul a determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights.
EVELYN LYNDAKER SINGER, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.
MACKENZIE HUGHES LLP, SYRACUSE (DENNIS P. HENNIGAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT STAFF LEASING OF CENTRAL N.Y., INC.
SABIN, BERMANT GOULD, LLP, NEW YORK (JONATHAN M. GLASSMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT THE SYRACUSE NEWSPAPERS.
GINA M. LOPEZ, BRONX (THELMA JOY B. RODRIGUEZ OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., HAYES, HURLBUTT, SCUDDER, AND BURNS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum:
Contrary to the contention of petitioner in this proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298, Supreme Court properly denied the petition, thereby confirming the determination of respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (Division) dismissing her discrimination complaint. The Division's determination of no probable cause has a rational basis and is not arbitrary or capricious ( see Matter of CBS, Inc. v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 54 N.Y.2d 921, 922; Matter of Bazile v. Acinapura, 225 A.D.2d 764, 765, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 807; Matter of Bal v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 202 A.D.2d 236, 236-237, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 805; State Div. of Human Rights v. Stanmor Liq. Co., 107 A.D.2d 1056, 1057). There is an "insufficient factual basis in the evidence to warrant an inference" of retaliatory discharge ( Matter of Giles v. State Div. of Human Rights, 166 A.D.2d 779, 780; see Matter of Harmon v. General Elec. Co., 72 A.D.2d 903, 904, appeal dismissed 49 N.Y.2d 916; see also Matter of Hone v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 223 A.D.2d 761, 762). Contrary to the further contention of petitioner, she was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present her case ( see Matter of McFarland v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 A.D.2d 108, 112; Matter of Joslyn v. Santaella, 112 A.D.2d 305, 306), and the Division's investigation of the complaint was not abbreviated or one-sided ( see Bazile, 225 A.D.2d at 765).