Case Name: Shirley Peck, Respondent, v. Sony Music Corporation, Doing Business as Columbia Records/CBS Inc., Defendant, and James Nevius, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1995-11-02
Citations: 221 A.D.2d 157
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shirley Peck, Respondent, v Sony Music Corporation, Doing Business as Columbia Records/CBS Inc., Defendant, and James Nevius, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 221
Pages: 157–158

Head Matter:
Shirley Peck, Respondent, v Sony Music Corporation, Doing Business as Columbia Records/CBS Inc., Defendant, and James Nevius, Appellant.
[632 NYS2d 963]

Opinion:
—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.