In Matter of Ferrara v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 2017 NY Slip Op 06968 (App. Div. 2d Dept. Oct. 4, 2017), the court affirmed the denial of petitioner’s Article 78 petition to review a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights that petitioner’s discrimination claims were barred by the NYS Human Rights Law’s one-year statute of limitations.
The court summarized the law:
Executive Law § 297(5) provides that “[a]ny complaint filed pursuant to this section must be so filed within one year after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice.” This provision “is in the nature of a statute of limitations and, thus, is mandatory” (Matter of Murphy v Kirkland, 88 AD3d 267, 273; see Matter of Freudenthal v County of Nassau, 99 NY2d 285, 291). Moreover, [*2]the limitations period commences running on the date that the claimant receives notice of the alleged discriminatory act or practice (see Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 77 NY2d 411, 419; Matter of Queensborough Community Coll. of City of N.Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 NY2d 926; Hillcrest Gen. Hosp.-GHI v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 90 AD2d 481, 481-482).
Contrary to the petitioner’s contention, the one-year period in which he was required to file a complaint with the DHR did not begin to run on his last day of employment, but on the date that he received notice of the termination of his employment (see Matter of Queensborough Community Coll. of City Univ. of N.Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 NY2d at 926; Cordone v Wilens & Baker, 286 AD2d 597, 598; see also Miller v International Telephone and Telegraph Corp., 755 F2d 20, 23).
Applying the law, the court held that “[s]ince it is undisputed that the petitioner did not file his complaint until more than one year after he received notice of the termination of his employment, the Supreme Court properly upheld the DHR’s determination that the complaint was untimely.”