Peck v. Sony Music Corporation, 221 A.D.2d 157

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered August 18, 1994, which, inter alia, denied defendant Nevius’ motion to dismiss the complaint as against him, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Executive Law § 296 (6) and (7) provide that an individual may be held liable for aiding and abetting discriminatory conduct. Patrowich v Chemical Bank (63 NY2d 541) is not a bar to maintenance of the action. Here, there are issues of fact as to defendant-appellant’s liability under Executive Law § 296 (6) and (7) as an aider and abettor of the alleged discriminatory conduct. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Case Details

Case Name: Peck v. Sony Music Corporation

Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Date Published: Nov 2, 1995

Citations: 221 A.D.2d 157; 632 N.Y.S.2d 963; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10701

Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.