In A Return to Eyes on the Prize: Litigating under the Restored New York City Human Rights Law (33 Fordham Urb LJ 255 [2006]), which my colleagues repeatedly cite with approval, the author, who is described as "the principal drafter of the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act" of 2005, complains that the failure of such reforms to achieve their potential is due in significant part to the supposed "unwillingness of judges to engage in an independent analysis of what interpretation of the City Human Rights Law would best effectuate the purposes of that law" (id. at 255 n a1, 255-256). However, in the next breath, he states: "In fairness, advocates for victims of discrimination must also take responsibility for the stunted state of City Human Rights Law. On far too many occasions, courts have not been asked to engage in this independent analysis" (id. at [*21]256 n 5). That is exactly the case here, and my colleagues' departure from the normal rules governing appellate courts is singularly unwarranted (see Grant, 130 AD2d at 176).{**61 AD3d at 84}
Saxe, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ., concur with Acosta, J.; Andrias, J.P., concurs in the result only in a separate opinion.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered August 14, 2007, affirmed, without costs.
Footnotes
Footnote 1: See 2005 NY City Legis Ann, at 528-535.
Footnote 2: These include reemphasizing the breadth of the anti-retaliation requirement, discussed infra, in part II. Other provisions include creating protection for domestic partners, increasing civil penalties for claims brought administratively, restoring attorney's fees for "catalyst" cases, and requiring thoroughness in administrative investigations conducted by the New York City Human Rights Commission.