From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeStefano v. Kopelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 18, 1999
265 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

concluding that the plaintiff's NYHRL sexual harassment claim failed to state a cause of action when "[a]t no time during the period in which the alleged harassing behavior occurred did the defendant employ four or more persons."

Summary of this case from Arculeo v. On-Site Sales Marketing

Opinion

Argued October 7, 1999

October 18, 1999

In an action under Executive Law article 15 to recover damages for discrimination based on sexual harassment, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Carter, J.).


ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying the defendant's motion and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendant, and the complaint is dismissed.

This action was brought pursuant to Executive Law § 296(1)(a). The plaintiff alleged that she was subjected to conduct constituting sexual harassment while employed by the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, contending, inter alia, that he does not satisfy the statutory requirement of "employer" under Executive Law § 292(5).

Under the Executive Law the term "employer" excludes "any employer with fewer than four persons in his employ" (Executive Law § 292; see, Kern v. City of Rochester, 254 A.D.2d 757; Germakian v. Kenny Intl. Corp., 151 A.D.2d 342). At no time during the period in which the alleged harassing behavior occurred did the defendant employ four or more persons. Contrary to the plaintiff's position, the defendant's motion goes to the substance of her claim. The contention of the defendant in this case is that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211[a][7]). An argument of that nature may be raised at any time (see, 3211[e]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:13, at 6). Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment must be granted.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff's cross motion to amend her complaint inasmuch as the plaintiff' s factual allegations fail to support the additional causes of action (see, Ruggiero v. Contemporary Shells, 160 A.D.2d 986; Parvi v. City of Kingston, 41 N.Y.2d 553; Restatement [Second] of Torts § 36[1], [3 ]; Zgraggen v. Wilsey, 200 A.D.2d 818; Hayes v. Schultz, 150 A.D.2d 522; Kelly v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 717 F. Supp. 227, 235).

KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, FEUERSTEIN, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

DeStefano v. Kopelman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 18, 1999
265 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

concluding that the plaintiff's NYHRL sexual harassment claim failed to state a cause of action when "[a]t no time during the period in which the alleged harassing behavior occurred did the defendant employ four or more persons."

Summary of this case from Arculeo v. On-Site Sales Marketing

In DeStefano, the court found that an employer was not covered by the State HRL because "[a]t no time during the period in which the alleged harassing behavior occurred did the defendant employ four or more persons" (265 AD2d at 446).

Summary of this case from Hwang v. DQ Mktg. Pub. Relations Group
Case details for

DeStefano v. Kopelman

Case Details

Full title:CARRIE DeSTEFANO, respondent-appellant, v. MARSHALL R. KOPELMAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 18, 1999

Citations

265 A.D.2d 446 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
697 N.Y.S.2d 111

Citing Cases

Hwang v. DQ Mktg. Pub. Relations Group

Both the State and City HRL exclude from liability employers with fewer than four employees. See Executive…

Guzman v. Lorenc

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant's wife…