The time limitations set forth in Executive Law § 297 (2) (a) and (4) (a) are directory, not mandatory, and petitioner has failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the delay in processing the complaint ( see, Matter of 935 Nicholas Renting Assocs. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 223 A.D.2d 377). Claims arising from petitioner's employees' discriminatory conduct were not time-barred since there was continuing impact on the complainant ( see, Mendoza v. State Div. of Human Rights, 74 A.D.2d 508, 509-510), and the constant, egregious, and blatant conduct warranted the relief awarded ( cf., Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 181 A.D.2d 891, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 762; Sogg v. American Airlines, 193 A.D.2d 153, 163, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 754, lv dismissed 83 N.Y.2d 846). We have reviewed petitioner's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.