NY State Senate Bill 2019-S6569

Senate Bill S6569

Signed By Governor

2019-2020 Legislative Session

Relates to providing that, in housing cases only, after a dismissal for lack of probable cause or jurisdiction, a complainant would have the option to appeal the final order, or bring a de novo action in court

download bill text pdf

Archive: Last Bill Status - Signed by Governor

Introduced
- In Committee Assembly
- In Committee Senate
- On Floor Calendar Assembly
- On Floor Calendar Senate
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
Delivered to Governor
Signed By Governor

Please enter your contact information

First Name

Last Name

Email Address

A valid email address is required.

Home address is used to determine the senate district in which you reside. Your support or opposition to this bill is then shared immediately with the senator who represents you.

Optional services from the NY State Senate:

Create an account. An account allows you to officially support or oppose key legislation, sign petitions with a single click, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.

Include a custom message for your Senator? (Optional)

Enter a message to your senator. Many New Yorkers use this to share the reasoning behind their support or opposition to the bill. Others might share a personal anecdote about how the bill would affect them or people they care about.

Actions

View Actions

	Assembly Actions - Lowercase Senate Actions - UPPERCASE
Oct 07, 2020	signed chap.236
Sep 25, 2020	delivered to governor
Jul 22, 2020	returned to senate passed assembly ordered to third reading rules cal.248 substituted for a9525 referred to codes delivered to assembly passed senate
Jul 21, 2020	ordered to third reading cal.801 reported and committed to rules
Jul 20, 2020	reported and committed to finance
Jan 08, 2020	referred to investigations and government operations
Jun 16, 2019	referred to rules

Votes

- Jul 22, 2020 - Floor Vote
  S6569
  
  43
  
  Aye
  
  17
  
  Nay
  
  0
  
  Absent
  
  0
  
  Excused
  
  0
  
  Abstained
  - - Floor Vote: Jul 22, 2020
      
      aye (43)
      
      Addabbo Jr.
      
      Bailey
      
      Benjamin
      
      Biaggi
      
      Breslin
      
      Brooks
      
      Carlucci
      
      Comrie
      
      Felder
      
      Gaughran
      
      Gianaris
      
      Gounardes
      
      Harckham
      
      Hoylman-Sigal
      
      Jackson
      
      Kaminsky
      
      Kaplan
      
      Kavanagh
      
      Kennedy
      
      Krueger
      
      Little
      
      Liu
      
      Martinez
      
      May
      
      Mayer
      
      Metzger
      
      Montgomery
      
      Myrie
      
      Parker
      
      Persaud
      
      Ramos
      
      Rivera
      
      Robach
      
      Salazar
      
      Sanders Jr.
      
      Savino
      
      Sepúlveda
      
      Serino
      
      Serrano
      
      Skoufis
      
      Stavisky
      
      Stewart-Cousins
      
      Thomas
      
      nay (17)
      
      Akshar
      
      Amedore
      
      Borrello
      
      Boyle
      
      Funke
      
      Gallivan
      
      Griffo
      
      Helming
      
      Jordan
      
      LaValle
      
      Lanza
      
      O'Mara
      
      Ortt
      
      Ranzenhofer
      
      Ritchie
      
      Seward
      
      Tedisco
  Jul 21, 2020 - Rules Committee Vote
  S6569
  
  13
  
  Aye
  
  3
  
  Nay
  
  3
  
  Aye with Reservations
  
  0
  
  Absent
  
  0
  
  Excused
  
  0
  
  Abstained
  - - Rules Committee Vote: Jul 21, 2020
      
      aye (13)
      
      Benjamin
      
      Breslin
      
      Comrie
      
      Gianaris
      
      Hoylman-Sigal
      
      Kennedy
      
      Krueger
      
      Little
      
      Liu
      
      Martinez
      
      Parker
      
      Savino
      
      Stewart-Cousins
      
      nay (3)
      
      Lanza
      
      Ortt
      
      Seward
      
      aye wr (3)
      
      Griffo
      
      LaValle
      
      Robach
  Jul 20, 2020 - Investigations And Government Operations Committee Vote
  S6569
  
  5
  
  Aye
  
  1
  
  Nay
  
  0
  
  Aye with Reservations
  
  0
  
  Absent
  
  0
  
  Excused
  
  0
  
  Abstained
  - - Investigations And Government Operations Committee Vote: Jul 20, 2020
      
      aye (5)
      
      Biaggi
      
      Carlucci
      
      Kaminsky
      
      Sepúlveda
      
      Skoufis
      
      nay (1)
      
      Lanza
  Jul 21, 2020 - Finance Committee Vote
  S6569
  
  17
  
  Aye
  
  3
  
  Nay
  
  3
  
  Aye with Reservations
  
  0
  
  Absent
  
  0
  
  Excused
  
  0
  
  Abstained
  - - Finance Committee Vote: Jul 21, 2020
      
      aye (17)
      
      Bailey
      
      Benjamin
      
      Breslin
      
      Comrie
      
      Hoylman-Sigal
      
      Kennedy
      
      Krueger
      
      Little
      
      Liu
      
      Montgomery
      
      Parker
      
      Rivera
      
      Robach
      
      Savino
      
      Skoufis
      
      Stavisky
      
      Thomas
      
      nay (3)
      
      Lanza
      
      Ranzenhofer
      
      Ritchie
      
      aye wr (3)
      
      Gallivan
      
      LaValle
      
      Seward

co-Sponsors

2019-S6569 (ACTIVE) - Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:: A9525
Law Section:: Executive Law
Laws Affected:: Amd §§297 & 298, Exec L
Versions Introduced in 2017-2018 Legislative Session:: A7282

2019-S6569 (ACTIVE) - Summary

Relates 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.

2019-S6569 (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

                                
 
BILL NUMBER: S6569

SPONSOR: JACKSON
 
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 pro visions 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 to 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

(Departmental   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:
Immediate.

2019-S6569 (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

                            
 
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   6569
 
                        2019-2020 Regular Sessions
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                               June 16, 2019
                                ___________
 
 Introduced  by  Sen.  JACKSON  --  (at  request of the Division of Human
   Rights) -- read twice and ordered printed,  and  when  printed  to  be
   committed to the Committee on Rules
 
 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
 
   THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND  ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
 
   Section  1.  Subdivision  9  of  section  297 of the executive law, as
 amended by section 16 of part D of chapter 405 of the laws of  1999,  is
 amended to read as follows:
   9.  Any  person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory
 practice shall have a cause of action in any court of appropriate juris-
 diction for damages, including, in cases of housing discrimination only,
 punitive damages, and such other remedies as may be appropriate, includ-
 ing any civil fines and penalties provided in subdivision four  of  this
 section,  unless such person had filed a complaint hereunder or with any
 local commission on human rights, or with the superintendent pursuant to
 the provisions of section two  hundred  ninety-six-a  of  this  chapter,
 provided  that,  where  the division has dismissed such complaint on the
 grounds of administrative convenience, on the grounds  of  untimeliness,
 or on the grounds that the election of remedies is annulled, such person
 shall  maintain  all  rights  to  bring suit as if no complaint had been
 filed with the division. At any time prior to a hearing before a hearing
 examiner, a person who has a  complaint  pending  at  the  division  may
 request  that  the  division  dismiss the complaint and annul his or her
 election of remedies so that the human rights law claim may  be  pursued
 in court, and the division may, upon such request, dismiss the complaint
 on  the  grounds that such person's election of an administrative remedy
 is annulled. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of section two hundred four
 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.

                                                            LBD09263-01-9

 S. 6569                             2
 
 of the civil practice law and rules, if a complaint is  so  annulled  by
 the  division,  upon  the  request  of the party bringing such complaint
 before the division, such party's rights to bring such cause  of  action
 before a court of appropriate jurisdiction shall be limited by the stat-
 ute of limitations in effect in such court at the time the complaint was
 initially filed with the division. Any party to a housing discrimination
 complaint  shall  have the right within twenty days following a determi-
 nation of probable cause pursuant to subdivision two of this section  to
 elect  to  have  an  action  commenced in a civil court, and an attorney
 representing the division of human rights will be appointed  to  present
 the  complaint  in court, or, with the consent of the division, the case
 may be presented by complainant's attorney. A  complaint  filed  by  the
 equal  employment opportunity commission to comply with the requirements
 of 42 USC 2000e-5(c) and 42 USC 12117(a) and 29  USC  633(b)  shall  not
 constitute the filing of a complaint within the meaning of this subdivi-
 sion.  No  person  who  has initiated any action in a court of competent
 jurisdiction or who has an  action  pending  before  any  administrative
 agency under any other law of the state based upon an act which would be
 an  unlawful  discriminatory  practice  under  this  article, may file a
 complaint with respect to the same grievance under this section or under
 section two hundred ninety-six-a of this article. IN  CASES  OF  HOUSING
 DISCRIMINATION  ONLY, A PERSON WHOSE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE
 DIVISION AFTER INVESTIGATION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR LACK OF  PROBA-
 BLE  CAUSE  MAY  FILE THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION IN A COURT OF APPROPRIATE
 JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, UNLESS JUDICIAL  REVIEW  OF  SUCH
 DISMISSAL  HAS  BEEN SOUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT
 OF THIS ARTICLE.
   § 2. Section 298 of the executive law, as amended by  chapter  166  of
 the laws of 2000, is amended to read as follows:
   § 298. Judicial  review  and enforcement.  Any complainant, respondent
 or other person aggrieved by an order of the commissioner  which  is  an
 order  after public hearing, a cease and desist order, an order awarding
 damages, an order dismissing a complaint, or by an order of the division
 which makes a final disposition  of  a  complaint  may  obtain  judicial
 review  thereof,  and  the division may obtain an order of court for its
 enforcement and for the enforcement of any  order  of  the  commissioner
 which has not been appealed to the court, in a proceeding as provided in
 this  section.  Such proceeding shall be brought in the supreme court in
 the county wherein the unlawful discriminatory  practice  which  is  the
 subject  of the order occurs or wherein any person required in the order
 to cease and desist from an unlawful discriminatory practice or to  take
 other  affirmative action resides or transacts business. Such proceeding
 shall be initiated by the filing of a notice of petition and petition in
 such court.  Thereafter, at a time and in a manner to  be  specified  by
 rules  of  court, the division shall file with the court a written tran-
 script of the record of all prior proceedings.  Upon  the  filing  of  a
 notice  of  petition  and petition, the court shall have jurisdiction of
 the proceeding and of the  questions  determined  therein,  except  that
 where  the  order sought to be reviewed was made as a result of a public
 hearing held pursuant to paragraph a of subdivision four of section  two
 hundred  ninety-seven  of  this  article,  the court shall make an order
 directing that the proceeding be  transferred  for  disposition  to  the
 appellate  division  of  the  supreme  court  in the judicial department
 embracing the county in which the proceeding was  commenced.  The  court
 shall  have power to grant such temporary relief or restraining order as
 it deems just and proper, and to make  and  enter  upon  the  pleadings,

 S. 6569                             3
 
 testimony, and proceedings set forth in such transcript an order enforc-
 ing,  modifying, and enforcing as so modified, or setting aside in whole
 or in part such order. No objection that has not  been  urged  in  prior
 proceedings  shall  be  considered  by  the court, unless the failure or
 neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary
 circumstances. Any party may move the court to remit  the  case  to  the
 division  in  the interests of justice for the purpose of adducing addi-
 tional specified and material evidence  and  seeking  findings  thereon,
 provided  he  or  she shows reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce
 such evidence in prior proceedings. The findings of facts on which  such
 order  is  based shall be conclusive if supported by sufficient evidence
 on the record considered as a whole. All such proceedings shall be heard
 and determined by the court and any appeal taken from  its  judgment  or
 order  shall  be  reviewed  by  the appropriate appellate court as expe-
 ditiously as possible and with lawful precedence over other matters. The
 jurisdiction of the courts over these proceedings, as provided for here-
 in, shall be exclusive and their judgments and orders  shall  be  final,
 subject  to  appellate  review  in the same manner and form and with the
 same effect as provided  for  appeals  from  a  judgment  in  a  special
 proceeding.  The  division's copy of the testimony shall be available at
 all reasonable times to all parties for examination without cost and for
 the purposes of judicial review of such order.  Any  appeal  under  this
 section and any proceeding, if instituted under article seventy-eight of
 the civil practice law and rules to which the division or the board is a
 party  shall be heard on the record without requirement of printing. The
 division may appear in court by one of its attorneys. A proceeding under
 this section when instituted by any  complainant,  respondent  or  other
 person  aggrieved must be instituted within sixty days after the service
 of such order. IN CASES OF  HOUSING  DISCRIMINATION  ONLY,  A  COMPLAINT
 DISMISSED AFTER INVESTIGATION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OR LACK OF PROBA-
 BLE  CAUSE  MAY  EITHER BE APPEALED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION OR THE SAME
 CAUSE OF ACTION MAY BE FILED IN  A  COURT  OF  APPROPRIATE  JURISDICTION
 PURSUANT TO SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN OF THIS ARTICLE.
   §  3.  This  act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall
 have become a law.

Comments

Open Legislation is a forum for New York State legislation. All comments are subject to review and community moderation is encouraged.

Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity, hate or toxic speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Attempts to intimidate and silence contributors or deliberately deceive the public, including excessive or extraneous posting/posts, or coordinated activity, are prohibited and may result in the temporary or permanent banning of the user. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday. By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.

Create an account. An account allows you to sign petitions with a single click, officially support or oppose key legislation, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.

Senate Bill S6569

Share this bill

Sponsored By

Robert Jackson