Opinion
12467 Index No. 160963/16 Case No. 2018-6103
11-24-2020
Marivi WOLFE–SANTOS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NYS GAMING COMMISSION et al., Defendants–Respondents, M&A Gourmet Deli Grocery, Inc., etc., Defendant.
Bergstein & Ullrich, LLP, New Paltz (Stephen Bergstein of counsel), for appellant. Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Joshua M. Parker of counsel), for respondents.
Bergstein & Ullrich, LLP, New Paltz (Stephen Bergstein of counsel), for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York (Joshua M. Parker of counsel), for respondents.
Friedman, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Oing, Kennedy, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered September 12, 2018, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents' motion to dismiss plaintiff's causes of action alleging hostile work environment under the New York City Human Rights Laws and her claims against defendant Lisa Lee, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The complaint fails to state a cause of action for hostile work environment under the City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8–107), because it does not allege that respondents' actions occurred under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination (see Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v. Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 120 A.D.3d 18, 26, 987 N.Y.S.2d 338 [1st Dept. 2014] ). Nor does it allege facts that would establish that she was treated less well than similarly situated probationary employees because of her disability (see Askin v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d 621, 973 N.Y.S.2d 629 [1st Dept. 2013] ). Instead, the complaint asserts the legal conclusions that the individual defendants' actions—such as adjusting her time card to reflect a late arrival at work, telling plaintiff that as a probationary employee she could be terminated at any moment and giving her a negative performance review—were due to her disability (see Askin, 110 A.D.3d at 622, 973 N.Y.S.2d 629 ).
Absent sufficient allegations of discriminatory acts, plaintiff's claim against defendant Lee cannot be sustained pursuant to the City Human Rights Law and was properly dismissed (see Stallings v. U.S. Elecs., 270 A.D.2d 188, 188, 707 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept. 2000] ).