From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alimo v. Off-Track Betting Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 1999
258 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

finding plaintiff's claims pursuant to the SHRL and CHRL subject to a three-year limitations period

Summary of this case from Dahbany-Miraglia v. Queensboro Community College

Opinion

February 9, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.).


The alleged assault upon plaintiff by co-worker Luna and the offensive song sung by co-worker Neglia, both in 1996, were not part of a "continuing violation" in connection with the purported disparate treatment of plaintiff by OTB from February to June 1994. Plaintiff's Civil Rights Act of 1964 title VII ( 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) claims based on the 1994 treatment were properly dismissed as time-barred, since plaintiff did not file a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of the United States Department of Justice until May 1996, well after the 300-day period for the filing of such a complaint had expired ( see, Lambert v. Genesee Hosp., 10 F.3d 46, 53, cert denied 511 U.S. 1052). While plaintiff's discrimination claim asserted under State and local statutes (Executive Law § 296; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. tit 8) is subject to a three-year Statute of Limitations and is time-barred only insofar as the complained of conduct took place outside that period ( see, CPLR 214; Koerner v. State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 442, 445-446), we nonetheless affirm the dismissal of the claim since plaintiff has failed sufficiently to allege facts indicative of disparate treatment based on gender or national origin ( see, Tucker v. Battery Park City Parks Corp., 227 A.D.2d 318).

Plaintiff's State and local claims alleging that the conduct of Luna and Neglia caused her to be subjected to a hostile work environment were also properly dismissed since there is no allegation that the workplace hostility about which plaintiff complains was caused or countenanced by plaintiff's employer ( see, Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66 F.3d 1295, 1305; see also, Walsh v. Covenant House, 244 A.D.2d 214). Luna and Neglia were merely plaintiff's co-workers, and defendant Menies, who plaintiff alleges knew about her mistreatment but took no remedial action, was not a supervisor.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Alimo v. Off-Track Betting Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 9, 1999
258 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

finding plaintiff's claims pursuant to the SHRL and CHRL subject to a three-year limitations period

Summary of this case from Dahbany-Miraglia v. Queensboro Community College
Case details for

Alimo v. Off-Track Betting Corporation

Case Details

Full title:MARY ALIMO, Appellant, v. OFF-TRACK BETTING CORPORATION et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 9, 1999

Citations

258 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
685 N.Y.S.2d 180

Citing Cases

Palmer v. Cook

Retaliation on the basis of age, gender and/or raceDefendant cites Alimo v. Off-Track Betting Corp., 258…

Thompson v. Lamprecht Transp.

tereotypes which adversely affected their decisions regarding her terms and conditions of employment. She…