The opinion
Ng v New York State Div. of Human Rights
2025 NY Slip Op 32205(U)
June 23, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 152732/2025
Judge: Judy H. Kim
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
INDEX NO. 152732/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. JUDY H. KIM PART 04
Justice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 152732/2025
SUSAN NG,
MOTION DATE 02/28/2025
Petitioner,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
-v-
NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, DECISION + ORDER ON
MOTION
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38,
39
were read on this motion for ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER) .
Upon the foregoing documents, the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed.
Petitioner, pro se, commenced this Article 78 proceeding against respondent New York
State Division of Human Rights (“DHR”) challenging DHR’s “Determination and Order After
Investigation” (the “Determination”) that there was no probable cause for petitioner’s claim of
discriminatory housing practices by The Lillian Goldman Family, LLC, LGF Enterprises Inc., and
Solil Management LLC. Respondent interposed an Answer seeking the dismissal of this special
proceeding on the grounds that petitioner failed to name The Lillian Goldman Family, LLC, LGF
Enterprises Inc., and Solil Management LLC as party respondents and that the Determination was
not arbitrary or capricious.
DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, this special proceeding must be dismissed based upon petitioner’s
failure to join The Lillian Goldman Family, LLC, LGF Enterprises Inc., and Solil Management
LLC—parties to the underlying proceeding before DHR and therefore necessary parties here—as
152732/2025 NG, SUSAN vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Page 1 of 4
Motion No. 001
1 of 4
[* 1]
INDEX NO. 152732/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2025
respondents (see Hackett v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 192 AD3d 1623, 1624 [4th Dept
2021] [internal citations omitted]).
Even disregarding this fundamental infirmity, the petition would be denied on its merits.
The standard for judicial review of an administrative determination pursuant to CPLR Article 78
is whether the agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously, i.e., without any sound basis in reason (see
Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ., 34 NY2d. 222, 231–232 [1974]). Accordingly, the Determination
“will not be overturned unless the record demonstrates that its investigation was abbreviated or
one-sided” (Pascual v N.Y.S. Div. of Human Rights, 37 AD3d 215, 216 [1st Dept 2007]).
The record reflects that petitioner submitted a written rebuttal to respondent’s response to
her complaint, after which she had a conference with DHR, and that DHR also “examined …
[petitioner’s] harassment complaint, NYPD complaints, list of incidents, correspondence between
[the] parties, [and] work orders” and interviewed two tenants and then issued a report concluding,
in pertinent part, that
Complainant claims that she started experiencing verbal and physical harassment
including stalking in the subject property, at Complainant’s business location, and
in the local community since 2017. Complainant alleges that Respondents’ staff,
contractors, tenants and non-tenants collectively discriminated and harassed
Complainant on at least 60 occasions, including at medical offices where
Complainant was physically harmed, treated with hostility, stalked,
underserved/overcharged, and Complainant’s personal information and mail
compromised. Complainant alleges that between April 2023 to June 2023,
Doorman Ronald Villar directed hostility and made middle-finger gestures towards
Complainant.
Respondents deny all allegations and assert that the situation does. not involve
Complainant being harassed or discriminated against by them or their employees
Instead, they contend that Complainant is experiencing severe mental health issues.
Respondents further deny Complainant’s claim that their employees engaged in a
widespread conspiracy involving countless unknown individuals throughout New
York City to harass and cyberstalk Complainant on an almost daily basis for years.
Respondents state that the only incident they are aware of is the one alleged to have
occurred on 7/31/2023, where an employee is accused of giving Complainant the
middle finger. When management was informed of the incident, they responded
152732/2025 NG, SUSAN vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 001
2 of 4
[* 2]
INDEX NO. 152732/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2025
promptly by investigating the matter and issuing a formal reprimand to the
employee According to Respondents, the incident arose from the employee’s
frustration due to Complainant persistently recording employees whenever she is
in their vicinity. Respondents assert that they have not been informed of any other
incidents involving Complainant.
A no probable cause determination is warranted because the Division’s
investigation did not reveal that Respondents treated Complainant adversely
because of race/color … A close review of the record reveals that Respondents
responded to Complainant’s repair requests and her email complaint about the
middle finger gesture made by Respondents’ employee. Respondents demonstrated
that they responded to Complainant in a timely manner and assured Complainant
that the incident would not happen again. The NYPD complaints reviewed by the
Division do not report any alleged conduct by Respondents or their employees and
does not allege the incidents occurred in the subject property.
…
The single incident of an employee expressing a middle finger gesture toward
Complainant, who continuously records staff during their work, does not rise to
discrimination. Respondents appropriately investigated and reprimanded the
employee. there is otherwise no evidence of discrimination on the basis of
Complainant’s protected class.
(NYSCEF Doc No. 33, determination and order after investigation).
The foregoing establishes that DHR’s investigation was adequate and not one-sided as
“petitioner was afforded a full and fair opportunity to present her claim and supporting
submissions, and to rebut the submissions of [respondents] in opposition to her complaint” (Lewis
v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 163 AD3d 818, 819-20 [2d Dept 2018] [internal citations
omitted]) and that DHR’s determination was not arbitrary and capricious or without a rational basis
but based on the record evidence (see Matter of Pathak v New York State Div. of Human Rights,
13 AD3d 634, 634-35 [2d Dept 2004]). While petitioner takes issue with DHR’s failure to
interview certain tenants she suggested, DHR “has broad discretion in determining the method to
be employed in investigating a claim” (Conte v City of New York Dept. of Sanitation (DSNY), 159
AD3d 640, 641 [1st Dept 2018]; see also Watterson v New York State Div. of Human Rights,
152732/2025 NG, SUSAN vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 001
3 of 4
[* 3]
INDEX NO. 152732/2025
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 40 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/23/2025
Donna Lieberman, 2016 NY Slip Op 30144[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2016] [“Although DHR did
not personally interview the petitioner, the method in which the DHR conducts an investigation is
within its discretion and there is no evidence before the Court that the investigation was
abbreviated or one-sided”]).
In light of the foregoing, DHR’s determination must be upheld and the petition dismissed
(see Matter of Pathak v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 13 AD3d 634, 634-35 [2d Dept
2004]).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed;
and it is further
ORDERED that respondent shall, within twenty days of receipt of this decision and order,
serve a copy of same, with notice of entry, upon petitioner as well as the Clerk of the Court, who
is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General
Clerk’s Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on
Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the
“EFiling” page on this court’s website).
This constitutes the decision, order, and judgment of the Court.
6/23/2025
DATE HON. JUDY H. KIM, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
152732/2025 NG, SUSAN vs. NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS Page 4 of 4
Motion No. 001
4 of 4
[* 4]