LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

LEVY v CITY COMN ON HUMAN RIGHTS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: LEVY, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>085_0740, Authority, City, York, Transit Authority, Jurisdiction, Publication, Commission, Human Rights, Discrimination, Corporations, Employer, Administrative Code, Provision, Matter, Ny2d, Complaint, General Municipal Law, Legislature, Powers, Nyc Admin, Local Laws, Constr, Respondent, Petitioner, Concurrent, Agencies, Thruway Auth, Supra, Contention , ContentID: 120250821

Case Documents
1 1995-06-08 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 124730
5 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 5 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CITY
YORK
TRANSIT AUTHORITY
JURISDICTION
PUBLICATION
LAW
COMMISSION
HUMAN RIGHTS
DISCRIMINATION
CORPORATIONS
EMPLOYER
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
PROVISION
MATTER
NY2D
COMPLAINT
GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW
LEGISLATURE
POWERS
NYC ADMIN
LOCAL LAWS
CONSTR
RESPONDENT
PETITIONER
CONCURRENT
AGENCIES
THRUWAY AUTH
SUPRA
CONTENTION


  IN THE MATTER OF LYNN J LEVY, v. THE CITY COMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
  IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, APPELLANT, v. THE NEW YORK
  CITY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESPONDENT.

    85 N.Y.2d 740,  651 N.E.2d 1264, 628 N.Y.S.2d 245 (1995).
    June 8, 1995

   1 No. 147 (1995 NY Int. 139)
   Decided June 8, 1995
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

    Eugene Freidus, for Appellant
   Rose M. Morgan, for individual Respondent.
   Michael S. Adler, for City Respondents.

    SIMONS, J.:

    As this appeal comes to us, the only issue presented is whether the
   New Y ork City Transit Authority is subject to the jurisdiction of the
   New Yo rk City Commission on Human Rights. We hold that it is, and
   therefore affirm the order of the Appellate Division.

    In September 1987 petitioner Ly nn Levy filed a complaint with the
   New York City Commission on Human Rights, al leging discrimination by
   her former employer, the New York City Transi t Authority. Levy
   complained that she had been subject to sexual harassme nt, and that
   the termination of her probationary employment with the Trans it
   Authority was the direct result of her refusal to go on dates with her
   supervisor. The Commission awarded her relief, and the Transit
   Authority instituted this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the
   Commission's jurisdiction.

    The New Yo rk City Administrative Code vests in the New York City
   Commission on Human Rights the authority and jurisdiction to eliminate
   and prevent discrimi nation within the City of New York (see
   generally, New York City Administrative Code title 8).(n 1) It
   provides further that it shall be illegal for an employer to discharge
   or otherwise discrim inate against an employee on the basis of gender
   (NYC Admin Code § 8-107(1)(a)). With respect to matters within the
   Commission's authority, the jurisdiction of the City Commiss ion
   within New York City is concurrent with the jurisdiction of the New
   York State Division of Human Rights (General Municipal Law
   239-s).(n 2)
SNIPPETS:
  • THE CITY COMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
  • CITY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESPONDENT.
  • This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • In September 1987 petitioner Ly nn Levy filed a complaint with the New York City Commission
  • and the Transit Authority instituted this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the
  • The New Yo rk City Administrative Code vests in the New York City
  • Commission on Human Rights the authority and jurisdiction to eliminate and prevent discrimi
  • With respect to matters within the Commission's authority, the jurisdiction of the City
  • Respondent c ontends that this statutory provision authorizes proceeding only against p
  • The Authority seeks to avoid this result by claiming that it is an independent and autonomous
  • Fund, 44 NY2d 84, 88; Collins v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr.
  • v NYS Thruway Auth., supra).
  • Similarly, we hel d that contracts awarded by the State Univ ersity Construction Fund -- a
  • They are "independent and autonomous" to the extent that they should be free from
  • Further, we cannot accept the contention that specific legislative authority is required for
  • It ass erts that the City of New York lacks the power "to adopt local laws which impair the
  • New York City Administrative Code 7; 8-107is not inconsistent with article 15 of the State
  •    |