What did the court decide?

The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court and held that the Assembly must pursue DHR's administrative process rather than use prohibition to stop the DHR investigation.

Who is affected by this decision?

The New York State Assembly (as a respondent in the DHR proceeding) and any party seeking to use prohibition to avoid DHR administrative review are affected.

What happens next in the DHR case?

DHR will continue its investigation and proceedings against the Assembly; the Assembly can challenge DHR's findings through administrative review and then seek judicial review under Executive Law § 298 if necessary.

Can the Assembly avoid the DHR process by asking the court for immediate relief?

No; the court held that alleged legal errors do not justify bypassing the administrative process, absent a true lack of jurisdiction or irreparable harm.

Matter of New York State Assembly v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

Docket 89 CA 24-01652

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

AdministrativeAffirmed

Filed: Apr 24, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: New York
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Type: Opinion
Case type: Administrative
Disposition: Affirmed
Citation: 2026 NY Slip Op 02505
Docket: 89 CA 24-01652

Appeal from denial of a CPLR article 78 petition seeking to prohibit DHR from proceeding with a discrimination claim against the New York State Assembly

Summary

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed Supreme Court’s denial of the Assembly’s CPLR article 78 petition seeking to stop the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) from pursuing a discrimination and harassment complaint filed by employee Nicole Golias. DHR had found probable cause and added the Assembly as a respondent. The court held that prohibition is an extraordinary remedy limited to lack or excess of jurisdiction and may not be used to bypass administrative review. The Assembly must first pursue DHR’s administrative process and, if necessary, judicial review under Executive Law § 298.

Issues Decided

Whether the extraordinary writ of prohibition is available to bar DHR from proceeding against the Assembly when the Assembly alleges inadequate due process notice and no specific allegations against it
Whether alleged errors of law by DHR constitute acting in excess of jurisdiction so as to excuse exhaustion of administrative remedies

Court's Reasoning

The court explained that prohibition addresses only actions taken without or in excess of jurisdiction and is not a substitute for ordinary administrative review. Alleged legal errors or deficiencies in the complaint do not amount to a lack of jurisdiction. Therefore the proper course is to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial review under Executive Law § 298; waiting for DHR's investigation does not cause irreparable harm to the Assembly.

Authorities Cited

Matter of Town of Huntington v New York State Div. of Human Rights82 NY2d 783 (1993)
Matter of Tessy Plastics Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights47 NY2d 789 (1979)
Matter of State of New York v King36 NY2d 59 (1975)

Parties

Petitioner: New York State Assembly
Respondent: New York State Division of Human Rights
Respondent: Nicole Golias
Attorney: Robert C. Weissflach (Harter Secrest & Emery LLP) for Petitioner
Attorney: Michael K. Swirsky (for DHR General Counsel Melissa Franco)
Attorney: Harvey P. Sanders (Sanders & Sanders) for Respondent Golias
Judge: Donna M. Siwek (Supreme Court, Erie County)
Judge: Ann Dillon Flynn (Clerk entry)

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-24
Supreme Court judgment entry date: 2024-08-23

What You Should Do Next

1
Proceed with DHR administrative defense
Participate in DHR's investigation and administrative proceedings, including responding to any charges and providing evidence and witnesses.
2
Preserve arguments for administrative and judicial review
Document alleged legal deficiencies in DHR's handling and preserve those arguments for the administrative record and any subsequent judicial review under Executive Law § 298.
3
Consult counsel about timing of judicial review
Discuss with counsel whether and when to seek judicial review after administrative exhaustion if the Assembly is dissatisfied with DHR's final determination.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court and held that the Assembly must pursue DHR's administrative process rather than use prohibition to stop the DHR investigation.
Who is affected by this decision?: The New York State Assembly (as a respondent in the DHR proceeding) and any party seeking to use prohibition to avoid DHR administrative review are affected.
What happens next in the DHR case?: DHR will continue its investigation and proceedings against the Assembly; the Assembly can challenge DHR's findings through administrative review and then seek judicial review under Executive Law § 298 if necessary.
Can the Assembly avoid the DHR process by asking the court for immediate relief?: No; the court held that alleged legal errors do not justify bypassing the administrative process, absent a true lack of jurisdiction or irreparable harm.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Matter of New York State Assembly v New York State Div. of Human Rights - 2026 NY Slip Op 02505

Matter of New York State Assembly v New York State Div. of Human Rights

2026 NY Slip Op 02505

April 24, 2026

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

IN THE MATTER OF NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, NICOLE GOLIAS, RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS, ET AL., RESPONDENT.

Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Decided on April 24, 2026

89 CA 24-01652

Present: Lindley, J.P., Curran, Ogden, Greenwood, And Hannah, JJ.

HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP, BUFFALO (ROBERT C. WEISSFLACH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

MELISSA FRANCO, GENERAL COUNSEL, NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, BRONX (MICHAEL K. SWIRSKY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT NEW YORK STATE DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

SANDERS & SANDERS, BUFFALO (HARVEY P. SANDERS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT NICOLE GOLIAS.

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Donna M. Siwek, J.), entered August 23, 2024, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment, insofar as appealed from, denied the petition.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent Nicole Golias, an employee of petitioner, New York State Assembly, filed a complaint with respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) alleging that a state assembly member discriminated against her based on her sex and sexually harassed her during her employment. DHR found probable cause to proceed and amended the discrimination complaint to add petitioner as a respondent in the DHR proceeding. Petitioner subsequently commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to prohibit DHR from proceeding with the discrimination claim to the extent such complaint is directed at petitioner. Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the petition, and we affirm.

"The extraordinary writ of prohibition is available to address 'whether [a] body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction' " (
Matter of Town of Huntington v New York State Div. of Human Rights
, 82 NY2d 783, 786 [1993], quoting CPLR 7803 [2];
see Matter of Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth. v Nevins
, 295 AD2d 887, 887 [4th Dept 2002]). Prohibition will not lie where the party has access to another adequate legal remedy (
see Town of Huntington
, 82 NY2d at 786;
Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth.
, 295 AD2d at 887). "[E]rrors of law, which of course may be verbalized, but incorrectly, as excesses of jurisdiction or power, are not to be confused with a proper basis for using the extraordinary writ" (
Matter of State of New York v King
, 36 NY2d 59, 62 [1975]).

Petitioner contends that DHR did not give petitioner constitutional due process notice of the charges against it because there are no specific allegations of wrongdoing on its part. It therefore contends that DHR is acting in excess of its jurisdiction and thus petitioner does not need to exhaust its administrative remedies. We reject that contention, however, because the "[r]emedy for asserted error of law in the exercise of [DHR's] jurisdiction or authority lies first in administrative review and following exhaustion of that remedy in subsequent judicial review pursuant to section 298 of the Executive Law" (
Matter of Tessy Plastics Corp. v State Div. of
Human Rights
, 47 NY2d 789, 791 [1979];
see Matter of Diocese of Rochester v New York State Div. of Human Rights
, 305 AD2d 1000, 1001 [4th Dept 2003]). Petitioner "will suffer no irreparable harm . . . by waiting to challenge [DHR's] findings, if necessary, on the merits after [DHR] investigates [Golias's] complaint" (
Town of Huntington
, 82 NY2d at 786;
see Diocese of Rochester
, 305 AD2d at 1001;
Niagara Frontier Transp. Auth.
, 295 AD2d at 888).

Entered: April 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn