Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015

Llanos v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 25, 2015 · Andrias, Friedman, Gische, Richter, Saxe

129 A.D.3d 620; 10 N.Y.S.3d 870

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Pisano v. Pisano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Maldonado v. City of New York (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
Ayers v. Bloomberg, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Pelepelin v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Pelepelin v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Reilly v. First Niagara Bank, N.A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Arifi v. Central Moving & Stor. Co., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Thompson v. District Council 37 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Cahill v. State of New York Stony Brook University Hospital (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered November 25, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has not made any factual allegations that she was adversely treated under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, as required to state a claim for discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (see Askin v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2013]; McKenzie v Meridian Capital Group, LLC, 35 AD3d 676 [2d Dept 2006]). Furthermore, plaintiff’s failure to adequately plead discriminatory animus is fatal to her claim of hostile work environment (see Chin v New York City Hous. Auth., 106 AD3d 443, 445 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 861 [2014]).

Plaintiff has abandoned her claim of retaliation, by failing to address it in her brief (see Hardwick v Auriemma, 116 AD3d 465, 468 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 908 [2014]). Were we to consider the claim, we would find that it is not viable.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.