(hereinafter SDHR), alleging that the leasing agent who answered the phone at Pine Ridge had
unlawfully steered Renner toward a different apartment complex upon learning that she had
children. SDHR investigated the complaint and ultimately dismissed it, finding that there was no
probable cause to believe that Pine Ridge engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice.
Petitioner David H. Pentkowski, as counsel for Pine Ridge, then sent a letter to CityVision
and Renner, stating that Pine Ridge considered the allegations in the complaint to be "false,
fraudulent and libelous"; that Pine Ridge had been forced to expend employee resources and
counsel fees defending the allegations; that Pine Ridge would be expecting compensation from
CityVision and Renner; and that, if no communication was forthcoming, Pine Ridge would
"proceed accordingly." Upon receipt of this letter, CityVision filed a second complaint with
SDHR, claiming retaliation for lodging its first complaint. Following a public hearing held
pursuant to Executive Law § 297 (4) (a), an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter
ALJ) recommended a finding that Pentkowski's sending of the letter constituted unlawful
retaliation, and that petitioners should pay a civil fine and damages, but not counsel fees. The
Commissioner of SDHR adopted most of the recommendation but awarded counsel fees.
Petitioners then commenced this proceeding challenging that determination, and SDHR filed a
cross petition to enforce it. The petition and cross petition were transferred to this Court for
disposition.
It is an unlawful discriminatory practice to retaliate against a person for filing a human rights
complaint (see Executive Law § 296 [7]). "To establish retaliation under