Llanos v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Llanos v. City of New York

129 A.D.3d 620, 10 N.Y.S.3d 870

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 25, 2015·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered November 25, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has not made any factual allegations that she was adversely treated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, as required to state a claim for discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (see Askin v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2013]; McKenzie v Meridian Capital Group, LLC, 35 AD3d 676 [2d Dept 2006]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s failure to adequately plead discriminatory animus is fatal to her claim of hostile work environment (see Chin v New York City Hous. Auth., 106 AD3d 443, 445 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 861 [2014]).

Plaintiff has abandoned her claim of retaliation, by failing to address it in her brief (see Hardwick v Auriemma, 116 AD3d 465, 468 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 908 [2014]). Were we to consider the claim, we would find that it is not viable.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered November 25, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has not made any factual allegations that she was adversely treated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, as required to state a claim for discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (see Askin v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2013]; McKenzie v Meridian Capital Group, LLC, 35 AD3d 676 [2d Dept 2006]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s failure to adequately plead discriminatory animus is fatal to her claim of hostile work environment (see Chin v New York City Hous. Auth., 106 AD3d 443, 445 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 861 [2014]).

Plaintiff has abandoned her claim of retaliation, by failing to address it in her brief (see Hardwick v Auriemma, 116 AD3d 465, 468 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 908 [2014]). Were we to consider the claim, we would find that it is not viable.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Llanos v. City of New York, 129 A.D.3d 620, 10 N.Y.S.3d 870 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

129 A.D.3d 620 (Llanos v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related