Victor v. Khatskevich

2025 NY Slip Op 04610

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: August 7, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 158981/14; Appeal No. 4394-M-2389 & M-2497; Case No. 2024-03635
• Status: Published

Opinion

Victor v Khatskevich (2025 NY Slip Op 04610)

Victor v Khatskevich

2025 NY Slip Op 04610

Decided on August 07, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: August 07, 2025
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, Gesmer, Rosado, Mendez, JJ.

Index No. 158981/14|Appeal No. 4394-M-2389 & M-2497|Case No. 2024-03635|

[*1]Adam Victor et al., Plaintiffs,

v

Yevgeniya Khatskevich et al., Defendants, Tyler Erdman, Defendant-Respondent, Manhattan Place Condominium, Defendant-Appellant.

Littler Mendelson PC, Melville (Daniel S. Gomez-Sanchez of counsel), for appellant.

Tyler Erdman, respondent pro se.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from, denied counterclaim defendant Manhattan Place Condominium's (MPC) motion for summary judgment dismissing Tyler Erdman's first counterclaim for retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Erdman failed to raise issues of fact as to whether he had "a relationship characterized in some manner as one of employment, past or present," with MPC, as is required for retaliation liability under the City HRL (Schmitt v Artforum Intl. Mag., Inc., 178 AD3d 578, 584 [1st Dept 2019]). Erdman argues for the first time on appeal that he can maintain this action against MPC because he formerly worked for MPC as an independent contractor. We decline to reach that issue since Erdman did not raise it before the motion court and "it is not a purely legal argument apparent on the face of the record" (Louis v City of New York, 223 AD3d 526, 527 [1st Dept 2023]).

Erdman's cross-appeal is dismissed as abandoned for failure to raise grounds for affirmative relief from the order in his brief (see Mangold v Board of Mgrs. of Meadow Ct. Condominium, 236 AD3d 406, 407-408 [1st Dept 2025]).

M-2389 — Victor v Khatsevich, et al.,

Motion to withdraw cross-appeal, granted.

M-2497 — Victor v Khatsevich, et al.,

Cross-Motion to dismiss cross-appeal, denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: August 7, 2025