From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramasar v. State Div. of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 2002
294 A.D.2d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

1181

May 23, 2002.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered May 2, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 to, inter alia, annul the determination of respondent State Division of Human Rights, dated December 27, 2000, finding that there was no probable cause to believe that respondent St. Luke's/Roosevelt Hospital Center had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice relating to employment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

ROSEMARY CARROLL, for petitioner-appellant.

RICKI ROER, for respondents-respondents.

Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin, Rubin, JJ.


Supreme Court properly found that the challenged determination of no probable cause was rationally based in the administrative record and thus not subject to judicial disturbance (see, Matter of McFarland v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 A.D.2d 108, 111-112). There was evidence before respondent agency to support the conclusion that respondent hospital's selection of a white male candidate for the position of Technical Coordinator, rather than petitioner, who is a black female, was premised on the successful candidate's more extensive administrative and managerial experience, and not on an impermissible discriminatory motive. Petitioner's contention that there was sufficient proof before the agency that she had been a victim of gender discrimination to warrant a hearing on the matter is without merit. "There is no requirement that a hearing be held simply because there is some issue of fact created by conflicting evidence before the [agency]. Rather, '[t]here must be a factual basis in the evidence sufficient to warrant a cautious [person] to believe that discrimination ha[s] been practiced'" (Matter of Hone v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 223 A.D.2d 761, 762, quoting Matter of Doin v. Cont. Ins. Co., 114 A.D.2d 724, 725). The evidence before the agency did not meet this standard.

We have reviewed petitioner's remaining claims and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Ramasar v. State Div. of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 2002
294 A.D.2d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Ramasar v. State Div. of Human Rights

Case Details

Full title:IN RE APPLICATION OF AMY L. RAMASAR, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. STATE…

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

Date published: May 23, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 249 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 870

Citing Cases

Stillman v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights

. . . Rather, `there must be a factual basis in the evidence sufficient to warrant a cautious [person] to…

Kim v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights

An agency is to be accorded wide deference in the method used to investigate a claim and it will not be…