| Matter of Woehrling v New York State Div. of Human Rights |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09242 [56 AD3d 1304] |
| November 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| In the Matter of Ronald Woehrling, Petitioner-Respondent, v NewYork State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents-Petitioners. |
—[*1] Caroline J. Downey, Bronx (Michael K. Swirsky of counsel), forrespondents-petitioners.
Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law § 298 (transferred to the Appellate Division ofthe Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department by order of the Supreme Court, ErieCounty [Joseph G. Makowski, J.], entered January 14, 2008) to annul a determination ofrespondent-petitioner Kumiki Gibson, Commissioner, New York State Division of HumanRights. The determination found after a hearing that petitioner-respondent unlawfullydiscriminated against the complainant based on her sex by denying her housing.
It is hereby ordered that the determination is unanimously modified on the law and thepetition is granted in part by reducing the award of compensatory damages for mental anguishand humiliation to $10,000 and as modified the determination is confirmed without costs, and thecross petition is granted in part and petitioner-respondent is directed to pay the complainant thefollowing sums: $10,000 for mental anguish and humiliation, $2,970.95 for out-of-pocketexpenses, and $10,000 for punitive damages, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum,commencing September 26, 2007.
Memorandum: Petitioner-respondent (petitioner) commenced this proceeding pursuant toExecutive Law § 296 (5) (a) (1) seeking to annul the determination that he unlawfullydiscriminated against the complainant by refusing to permit her to rent an apartment in a duplexthat he owned upon learning that the complainant was pregnant. Following a hearing before anadministrative law judge, respondent-petitioner Commissioner of the New York State Divisionof Human Rights ordered petitioner to pay the complainant $20,000 for mental anguish andhumiliation, $2,970.95 for out-of-pocket expenses, and $10,000 in punitive damages.Respondents-petitioners filed a cross petition seeking enforcement of the order.
In reviewing the Commissioner's determination, this Court may not substitute its ownjudgment for that of the Commissioner (see generally Executive Law § 298;300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 179-180[1978]), and "we must confirm the determination so long as it is based on substantial evidence"(State Div. of Human Rights v Rochester Prods. Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 112 AD2d785, 786 [1985]). We conclude that the Commissioner's determination that petitionerdiscriminated against the complainant based on her [*2]pregnancyis supported by substantial evidence and that the award of $10,000 for punitive damages issupported by the evidence and is authorized by Executive Law § 297 (4) (c) (iv) as adeterrent against housing discrimination. We agree with petitioner, however, that the award of$20,000 for mental anguish and humiliation is not supported by the evidence. "In reviewing suchan award, we must 'determine[, inter alia,] whether the relief was reasonably related to thewrongdoing [and] whether the award was supported by evidence before [the Commissioner]' "(Matter of Anagnostakos v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 46 AD3d 992, 994[2007], quoting Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78NY2d 207, 219 [1991]). We conclude that the award is not reasonably related to the wrongdoingand is not supported by the evidence before the Commissioner. The evidence of the mentalanguish and humiliation experienced by the complainant consisted of her testimony that she "hada little emotional breakdown" because she was "six months pregnant and basically homeless."She further testified that the experience was "very emotional" and caused an elevation of herblood pressure at her next prenatal visit to her physician, although the blood pressure problemwas not ongoing and she attributed her emotional anguish in part to the fact that she was sixmonths pregnant. In light of the nonspecific nature of the complainant's mental distress, weconclude that the maximum award for mental anguish and humiliation supported by the evidenceis $10,000 (see generally Matter of New York State Tug Hill Commn. v New York State Div.of Human Rights, 52 AD3d 1169 [2008]; Matter of Diaz Chem. Corp. v New York StateDiv. of Human Rights, 237 AD2d 932 [1997]). We therefore modify the determinationaccordingly. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.