After respondent filed his complaint charging that petitioner discriminated against him because of his blindness, the Commission on Human Rights did not render a final determination for 7 years. While Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-109 (2) provides that "[a]fter the filing of any complaint, the Commission shall make prompt investigation in connection therewith", petitioner did not establish that it suffered substantial prejudice resulting from the non-compliance (see, Matter of Syquia v Board of Educ., 80 N.Y.2d 531, 535-536). In so ruling, we in no way condone the extensive delay herein.
Once respondent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was qualified for the position of a telephone interviewer, the burden shifted to petitioner to show that it could not reasonably accommodate respondent (Prewitt v United States Postal Servs., 662 F.2d 292, 308; compare, Local Laws, 1991, No. 39 of the City of New York, § 1 [codified at Administrative Code of City of N Y § 8-102 (18)]). Petitioner failed to meet its burden. Refusal to modify its existing programs amounted to discrimination (see, Dopico v Goldschmidt, 687 F.2d 644, 652).
Contrary to petitioner's contention, we find that the award for compensatory damages is supported by the evidence (Matter of Imperial Diner v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 52 N.Y.2d 72, 79). We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ross and Rubin, JJ.