46 N.Y.2d 902 (1979)

In the Matter of Rubin Maloff et al., Appellants, v. City Commission on Human Rights and Nancy Schriber, Respondents, and Council of Supervisors and Administrators of New York City, Local 1, SASOC, AFL-CIO, Intervenor-Appellant.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided February 15, 1979.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Gary J. Greenberg and Sybil H. Pollet for appellants.

Leonard Greenwald and Thomas M. Kennedy for intervenor-appellant.

Allen G. Schwartz, Corporation Counsel (Allen Serrins and Karene A. Freeman of counsel), for respondents.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER and FUCHSBERG concur in memorandum.


The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Notwithstanding an erroneous reference to a "fatal taint" standard of review, it is clear that the New York City Commission on Human Rights concluded, based upon sufficient evidence (Administrative Code of City of New York, § B1-9.0), that the unsatisfactory rating given respondent Schriber was not based upon legitimate nondiscriminatory grounds but, rather, upon grounds discriminatory in nature. (See Matter of Maloff v Commission on Human Rights [Anilyan], 46 N.Y.2d 908 [decided herewith]; Matter of Pace Coll. v Commission on Human Rights, 38 N.Y.2d 28, 40.) Inasmuch as the damages awarded by the commission were intended to compensate respondent for the retaliatory practices of appellant Maloff rather than as compensation for the unsatisfactory rating received by respondent, they were properly ordered. In sustaining this award, we reject appellant Maloff's contention that the commission lacked the authority to award damages against him in his individual capacity. The commission has wide discretion in formulating remedial relief to prevent discrimination. (Cf. New York Inst. of Technology v State Div. of Human Rights, 40 N.Y.2d 316, 324-325.) On the facts before us, we cannot say that the commission erred as a matter of law. (Id., at p 325.)

Order affirmed.


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases