ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE [AI] IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN PREPARING NYPPL SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Aug 5, 2025

Paying plaintiff's salary and having the power to control plaintiff's conduct held sufficient to establish the defendant was the plaintiff's employee in this discrimination action

The former secretary [Plaintiff] to a former New York State Supreme Court Justice [Justice] commenced this human rights action naming as defendants the New York State Supreme Court, Monroe County, the Unified Court System of the State of New York, the Office of Court Administration, and the Office of the Managing Inspector General for Bias Matters [Defendants]. Plaintiff alleged Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of sex in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law [NYSHRL (Executive Law §290 et seq.)] Plaintiff alleged that she was the victim of sexual abuse and harassment of Plaintiff by Justice.

Supreme Court granted Defendants' pre-answer motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) (7) and (c), holding that Plaintiff was not Defendants' employee and therefore Defendants were not liable under the NYSHRL. Plaintiff appealed Supreme Court's ruling.

The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's ruling, denied Defendant's motion, and reinstated the Plaintiff's complaint. 

The Court noted that it agreed with Plaintiff that her complaint stated a cause of action against Defendants for a violation under the NYSHRL. Citing Van Ostrand v Latham, 222 AD3d 1382, the Appellate Division explained that  when considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) ... "[this Court] must afford the pleadings a liberal construction, accept the allegations of the complaint as true and provide plaintiff . . . the benefit of every possible favorable inference". Further, the Appellate Division opined that "Whether a plaintiff can ultimately establish its allegations is not part of the calculus in determining a motion to dismiss".

Accepting the facts as alleged in the Plaintiff's complaint as true, the Appellate Division held that Plaintiff's argument that Defendants were Plaintiff's employers was sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship by reciting certain factors including that alleging that Defendants paid Plaintiff's salary and had the power to control Plaintiff's conduct.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.


NYPPL Publisher Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the information and, or, decisions summarized in NYPPL. For example, New York State Department of Civil Service's Advisory Memorandum 24-08 reflects changes required as the result of certain amendments to §72 of the New York State Civil Service Law to take effect January 1, 2025 [See Chapter 306 of the Laws of 2024]. Advisory Memorandum 24-08 in PDF format is posted on the Internet at https://www.cs.ny.gov/ssd/pdf/AM24-08Combined.pdf. Accordingly, the information and case summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com