Opinion
No. 16167 Index No. 101616/17 Case No. 2022-00360
06-21-2022
Jessica Denson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.
Bowles & Johnson PLLC, New York (David K. Bowles of counsel), for appellant. LaRocca Hornik Rosen & Greenberg LLP, New York (Jared E. Blumetti of counsel), for respondent.
Bowles & Johnson PLLC, New York (David K. Bowles of counsel), for appellant.
LaRocca Hornik Rosen & Greenberg LLP, New York (Jared E. Blumetti of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Gische, J.P., Friedman, González, Rodriguez, Pitt, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis Kahn, III, J.), entered on or about October 29, 2021, which denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her claim alleging retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The record fails to demonstrate conclusively that defendant commenced arbitration proceedings pursuant to the parties' non-disclosure, non-disparagement agreement (NDA) in retaliation for plaintiff's filing of a sex discrimination action (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107 [7]). Defendant submitted its chief operating officer's affidavit averring that it had a legitimate basis for compelling arbitration, i.e., that it in good faith believed plaintiff violated the NDA by making factual allegations that exceeded the facts necessary to state a viable claim (see Marchuk v Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 100 F.Supp.3d 302, 312 [SD NY 2015]; Schanfield v Sojitz Corp. of Am., 663 F.Supp.2d 305, 342-343 [SD NY 2009]), and plaintiff failed to submit evidence showing that this proffered reason was pretextual (see Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29, 46 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 811 [2012]).
Neither Denson v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (180 A.D.3d 446 [1st Dept 2020]) nor Denson v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. (530 F.Supp.3d 412 [SD NY 2021]) has preclusive effect. Neither decision made any findings with respect to the issue of defendant's motives for pursuing arbitration, and the retaliation claim did not arise solely from the transactions at issue in those prior proceedings (see Kahn v Taub, 47 A.D.3d 455, 456 [1st Dept 2008]).