Sortie Marble & Granite, Inc. v. Imperial

222 A.D.3d 1407

202 N.Y.S.3d 851

In the Matter of SORTIE MARBLE & GRANITE, INC., and Frank Addeo, Respondents,

v.Maria L. IMPERIAL, Acting Commissioner of Division of Human Rights, Petitioner, and Henry Lee Bolden, Respondent.

924

TP 22-01769

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Entered: December 22, 2023

CAROLINE J. DOWNEY, GENERAL COUNSEL, STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, BRONX (TONI ANN HOLLIFIELD OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER.

DAVID W. POLAK, WEST SENECA, FOR RESPONDENTS SORTIE MARBLE & GRANITE, INC. AND FRANK ADDEO.

LAW OFFICE OF LINDY KORN, BUFFALO (LINDY KORN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT HENRY LEE BOLDEN.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., BANNISTER, MONTOUR, NOWAK, AND DELCONTE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the determination is unanimously confirmed without costs, the cross-petition is granted, and respondents Sortie Marble & Granite, Inc. and Frank Addeo are directed to pay respondent Henry Lee Bolden the sum of $2,080 for lost wages with interest at the rate of 9% per annum commencing December 1, 2019, and $20,000 for mental anguish with interest at the rate of 9% per annum commencing January 25, 2022, and to pay the Comptroller of the State of New York the sum of $30,000 for a civil fine and penalty with interest at the rate of 9% per annum commencing January 25, 2022.

Memorandum: Petitioner, as relevant to this proceeding, filed a cross-petition pursuant to Executive Law § 298 seeking to enforce her final order, which in turn adopted the "recommended findings of fact, opinion and decision, and order" of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ concluded, following a public hearing, that respondents Sortie Marble & Granite, Inc. and Frank Addeo (respondents) had engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices against respondent Henry Lee Bolden (complainant) by subjecting him to a hostile work environment on account of his race, retaliating against him, and constructively discharging him from employment. The ALJ awarded complainant $2,080 for lost wages and $20,000 in compensatory damages for mental anguish and humiliation, and imposed a $30,000 civil fine and penalty on respondents.

We conclude that the determination of petitioner that respondents engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices is supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Miller v. New York State Div. of Human Rights , 210 A.D.3d 1526, 1527, 176 N.Y.S.3d 831 [4th Dept. 2022] ; Matter of Stellar Dental Mgt. LLC v. New York State Div. of Human Rights , 162 A.D.3d 1655, 1656-1657, 80 N.Y.S.3d 757 [4th Dept. 2018] ; see generally 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v. State Div. of Human Rights , 45 N.Y.2d 176, 179-181, 408 N.Y.S.2d 54, 379 N.E.2d 1183 [1978] ). Further, we agree with petitioner that Addeo "may be held liable for the discrimination inasmuch as he is the sole owner of the corporate [respondent] and was a perpetrator of the discrimination against complainant" ( Matter of El Agave Mexican Grill, Inc. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights , 192 A.D.3d 1565, 1566, 143 N.Y.S.3d 760 [4th Dept. 2021] ).

With respect to the monetary awards, we conclude that the award for lost wages is reasonably related to the discriminatory conduct and is supported by substantial evidence (see id. at 1567, 143 N.Y.S.3d 760 ) and that the award of compensatory damages to complainant is " ‘reasonably related to the wrongdoing, supported by substantial evidence, and comparable to other awards for similar injuries’ " ( Miller , 210 A.D.3d at 1527, 176 N.Y.S.3d 831 ; see Matter of Gold Coast Rest. Corp. v. Gibson , 67 A.D.3d 798, 800, 888 N.Y.S.2d 186 [2d Dept. 2009] ). We also conclude that petitioner did not abuse her discretion as a matter of law in imposing the civil fine and penalty (see Stellar Dental Mgt. LLC , 162 A.D.3d at 1658, 80 N.Y.S.3d 757 ; see generally Matter of Kelly v. Safir , 96 N.Y.2d 32, 38, 724 N.Y.S.2d 680, 747 N.E.2d 1280 [2001], rearg denied 96 N.Y.2d 854, 729 N.Y.S.2d 670, 754 N.E.2d 773 [2001] ).

Finally, w...