PART 35 - Nymag

AD2d 76, 81,692 NYS2d 304 [lst Dept 19991, a@ 94 NY2d 659,709 NYS2d 861 [2000]), and
the ciiterion becomes “whellier the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether
he has stated one” (Guggenheinzer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268,275,401 NYS2d 182 [1977]; see
nl~o Lcnn v Mrirtirrez, 84 N Y2d 83, 88, 61 4 NYS2d 972 [ 19941; Ark Bryant Pm-k Corp. v Brycliit
Prirlc Restorrition Corp., 285 AD2d 143, 150, 730 NYS2d 48 [lst Dept ZOOl]).
Heniiignn‘s First nncl Second Causes of Action Against Centro atid Burrell
Whether Hennigan’s first cause of action for failure to provide a nondiscriminatory work
--
enviroiiment, which is essentially a hostile work envirZnm&€ claim, may be mGniKed-tiinis 011
- . -_ .__. __
whether Bm-rell’s alleged conduct constitutes discriminatory conduct actionable by Hennigaii.
To s~ipport a claim of hostile work environment, a plaintiff must allege facts indicating
that “the workplace is permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,’ that is
‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment”’ (Forrest v
Jewish Giiilrf for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 3 10, 786 NYS2d 382 [2004]). A plaintiff must allege
either that a single incident was extraordinarily severe, or that a series of incidents were
“sufficicntly continuous and concerted” to have altered the conditions of her working
enviroi~ment (Perry v Ethan Allen, Inc., 115 F3d 143, 149 [2d Cir 19971, qziotrng Cnrrcro I? New
York Cily Housing Auth., 890 F2d 569, 577 [2d Cir 13891; Kotcher v Rosa nrzd Sitllivati
Appliance Cenler, Inc., 957 F2d 59 [2d Cir 19921 [the incidents must be repeated and
continuous; isolated acts or occasional episodes will not merit reliefl).4
Evidence of harassment directed at other co-workers can be relevant to an employee’s
4
The Court notes that the “virtually identical ... federal standards for actionable sexual harassment are used
in deterininmg claims brought under the New York Human Rights Law” (Espnillat v Brdl OrigindJ, Inc , 227 AD2d
266, 642 NYS2d 875 [l’’ Dept 19961 citing Zvetter’ v Brozilinn Nut/. Superintendency, 833 F Supp 1089, 1095).
19
.__ __