State Div. of Human Rights v. Averill Park Cent. School Dist., 46 N.Y.2d 908 (1979)

Delays by the Division of Human Rights in processing complaints do not automatically divest the agency of jurisdiction unless the respondent demonstrates substantial prejudice resulting from the delay.

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether delays by the Division of Human Rights in processing a complaint under Executive Law § 297 serve as an automatic bar to the continuation of the proceeding. The Court held that the time schedules outlined in the statute are directory, not mandatory, and that delays do not oust the Division of jurisdiction unless the respondent can demonstrate substantial prejudice. The Court reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, finding insufficient reason to halt the proceedings, particularly given the reorganization within the State Human Rights Appeal Board.

Facts

The specific facts underlying the human rights complaint are not detailed in this decision. The focus is solely on the procedural issue of delay by the Division of Human Rights in processing the complaint against Averill Park Central School District.

Procedural History

The Division of Human Rights initiated proceedings against Averill Park Central School District. The State Human Rights Appeal Board issued an order. The Appellate Division reversed that order, concluding that the Division’s delay barred continuation of the proceeding. The Division of Human Rights appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether delays by the Division of Human Rights in processing a complaint under Executive Law § 297 automatically divest the Division of jurisdiction to continue the proceeding, absent a showing of substantial prejudice to the respondent.

Holding

No, because the time schedules specified in Executive Law § 297 are directory, not mandatory, and absent a showing of substantial prejudice to the respondent, delays do not oust the Division of the jurisdiction conferred on it by the Human Rights Law.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on its prior holding in Union Free School Dist. No. 6 v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 35 NY2d 371 (1974), reiterating that statutory time limits for the Division of Human Rights are directory, intended for the benefit of complainants, and do not shield those charged with violations. The Court emphasized that “Absent some showing of substantial prejudice, noncompliance with such schedules does not operate to oust the division of the jurisdiction conferred on it by the Human Rights Law”. The Court clarified that mere passage of time is insufficient to demonstrate substantial prejudice; actual injury to the respondent must be shown. The Court distinguished the facts from the “unusual situation” in Board of Educ. v State Div. of Human Rights, 42 NY2d 862 (1977), without detailing the specifics of that case. The Court also rejected arguments regarding the non-finality of the Appeal Board’s order, citing State Off. of Drug Abuse Servs. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 48 NY2d 276 (1979).