The question presented on this appeal is whether the State Division of Human Rights may properly dismiss "for administrative convenience" a complaint which is time barred by Executive Law § 297 (5). We conclude that such a dismissal is not authorized because it would contravene the statutory scheme requiring a complainant to elect a remedy in either an administrative or a judicial forum (
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
MARINE BANK v. HUMAN RIGHTS
75 N.Y.2d 240 (1989)
Marine Midland Bank, N. A., Appellant, v. New York State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued November 20, 1989.
Decided December 21, 1989.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Judges SIMONS, TITONE and BELLACOSA concur with Judge ALEXANDER; Judge KAYE dissents and votes to affirm in a separate opinion in which Chief Judge WACHTLER concurs; Judge HANCOCK, JR., taking no part.
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.