and costs to a prevailing complainant, to develop and implement affirmative action programs, and to apply to an appropriate court for injunctive relief to preserve the status quo or to prevent irreparable harm and to carry out the purposes of the article. Metropolitan Dade County, Fla., Code ch. 11A, art. I, § 11A-7(5)(f)(i)-(v) (1981). See also Metropolitan Dade County, Fla., Code ch. 11 A, art. I, §§ 11A-8(c)(6) and 11A-13.1 (1981). It is the expressed policy of the fai ission for Human Rights, 45 Misc.2d 1081, 259 N.Y. S.2d 4 (Sup.Ct.1965) (finding that New York’s anti-discrimination in housing law is not penal in nature, despite provisions for penal sanctions therein). Cf. Insurance Co. of North America v. Chinoise Restaurant & Trading Corp., 85 A.D.2d 712, 445 N.Y.S.2d 835 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Since the Club’s claim in this case falls
holding that an insurers duty to defend arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured holding that an insurance company which chose not to defend its insured could not later deny coverage by asserting the legally obligated to pay provision in the policy after the insured reached a settlement where the injured party agreed to collect only against insurance proceeds holding that despite assurances from the insurance company that the insured could file the pol after femas deadline the insured could not collect because the insured was responsible for timely filing holding that an insurance company stands in the shoes of the insured when pursuing an action against the tortfeasor holding that an insurance company had a duty to defend an action against the insured despite allegations that the insured violated new yorks human rights law restaurants discrimination toward handicapped indicating such laws are not penal for purposes of exclusion clause in insurance contract despite provisions for penal sanctions in the law