Relates to providing that, in housing cases only, after dismissal for lack of probable cause or lack of jurisdiction, a complainant would have the option to appeal the final order, or bring a de novo action in court.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A9525
SPONSOR: Buchwald TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the executive law, in relation to providing that, in
housing cases only, after a dismissal for lack of probable cause or lack
of jurisdiction, a complainant would have the option to appeal the final
order, or bring a de novo action in court
PURPOSE OF THE BILL:
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Human Rights Law to provide
that, in cases of housing discrimination only, following a dismissal by
the Division of Human Rights (Division) for lack of probable cause or
lack of jurisdiction, the complainant would have the option either to
appeal the final order (as is currently permitted) or bring a de novo
action in court.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Subsection 9 of section 297 of the Executive Law would be amended to
provide that, in cases of housing discrimination only, after a dismissal
for lack of probable cause or lack of jurisdiction, the complainant
would have the option either to appeal the final order, or bring a de
novo action in court. This option would be an exception to the election
of remedies provisions of this subsection, which would continue to apply
to all cases except housing discrimination cases.
Section 298 of the Executive Law would be similarly amended to clarify,
for cases of housing discrimination only, that the appeal provisions of
this section are not the exclusive avenue for complainants who receive a
determination of lack of probable cause or lack of jurisdiction.
EXISTING LAW:
The Human Rights Law currently provides, pursuant to subsection 9 of
section 297, that a complainant must elect to file with the Division or
to file in court, but may not pursue both remedies. A complaint may be
filed in court after a case is dismissed for administrative convenience,
or as untimely, or on the basis that the election of remedies is
annulled. However, currently after a determination of lack of jurisdic-
tion or lack of probable cause, the complainant's recourse is an appeal
pursuant to Section 298 of the Executive Law.
Section 298 of the Executive Law states the procedures for appeal of a
Division final order, including determinations of lack of probable cause
or lack of jurisdiction.
JUSTIFICATION:
In 1999, following multiple amendments to the Human Rights Law, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) determined that the
Human Rights Law was substantially equivalent to the federal Fair Hous-
ing Act. This finding of substantial equivalence permitted the Division
to once again enter into case processing contracts with HUD, as it had
previously done before the federal law was amended, and as it has done
annually since substantial equivalence was achieved.
These contracts are beneficial to both agencies and result in signif-
icant federal funding to the Division.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has requested this
proposed change to the Human Rights Law because it has determined that
it is necessary that the Fair Housing Act and the Human Rights Law be
more equivalent than it had previously determined. Under federal law, a
complaining party may bring an action in court following the completion
of the investigation, although, unlike state law, federal law does not
provide a right of appeal to court following the investigative determi-
nation. HUD has requested that the Division seek legislation to permit a
case to be brought de novo in court following a final determination
after investigation by the Division.
This bill would provide complainant the option of either appealing the
final Division determination after investigation to court or filing the
case de novo in court.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
This bill was introduced in the 2017-18 session as A.7282 (departmental
Bill 40, DHR 0317); It did not come -Co a vote in either house. This
bill was introduced in 2015-2016 as A.6944 (Departmental 9, DHR.
02-15). It passed the Assembly but did not come to a vote in the
Senate. This bill was also introduced in 2013-2014 as A.7407 (Depart-
mental 41, DHR 5-13). It passed the Assembly but did not come to a
vote in the Senate.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:
None.
LOCAL IMPACT:
None.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have
become a law.
