Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Liberty Mutual Insurance v. City of New York Commission on Human Rights 31 N.Y.2d 1044

← Cases

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. City of New York Commission on Human Rights

31 N.Y.2d 1044 Court N.Y. Decision date 1973-02-15 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1044
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant, v. City of New York Commission on Human Rights, Respondent.
Argued January 12, 1973;
decided February 15, 1973.
p. 1045
Kalvin M. Grove, of the Illinois Bar, admitted on motion pro hac vice, and Robert A. Penney for appellant.
Norman Redlich, Corporation Counsel (Eric J. Byrne, Stanley Buchsbaum, Beverly Gross and Steven J. Sacks of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, without costs, in the following memorandum: The complaint here involved is loosely drawn, but we agree with

p. 1046
the Appellate Division that it was sufficient, although minimally so, to set the commission’s investigatory machinery in motion and, by that token, sufficient to support the investigative subpoenas which were issued. In filing such a complaint, however, not only should the commission be reasonably satisfied that there ' is basis for the charge asserted, but it must make certain that, in compliance with New York City’s Administrative Code (§ Bl-8.0, subd. 1), the complaint sets forth particulars sufficient to furnish the employer with adequate notice of the alleged discriminatory practices and affords him adequate opportunity to prepare a defense. Due process demands no less.

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones and Wachtler. Taking no part: Judge Breitel.