| David v New York City Commn. on Human Rights |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 10195 [57 AD3d 406] |
| December 30, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Vanessa C. David, Appellant, v New York CityCommission on Human Rights et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Clifford Mulqueen, New York, for New York City Commission on Human Rights,respondent. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ronald E. Sternberg of counsel), forNew York City Department of Education and Frank Borrowiec, respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered May 29, 2007,which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the petition and dismissed theproceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul the determination of respondentNew York City Commission on Human Rights (HRC), dated August 9, 2005, affirming HRC'sdetermination and order after investigation, finding no probable cause to believe that petitionerwas discriminated against by her employer, respondent Department of Education, and to convertthe proceeding into a plenary action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
HRC's determination had a rational basis and was not arbitrary and capricious (see Matterof McFarland v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 241 AD2d 108, 111-112 [1998]).Notwithstanding petitioner's concern with HRC's alleged predisposition, the record establishesthat HRC conducted a sufficient investigation, including interviewing over 20 witnesses, that wasnot "abbreviated or one sided" into her claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color,gender and sexual orientation (Matter ofLevin v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 12 AD3d 328, 329 [2004]). Nor isthere evidence that HRC was biased against petitioner.[*2]
In light of the foregoing, petitioner's request to convertthis proceeding into a plenary action (CPLR 103 [c]) has been rendered academic.Concur—Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Buckley and Acosta, JJ. [See 2007NY Slip Op 31312(U).]