Berrios v. Rose Assoc., Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 34513(U)
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.2024Background
- Tenants Xavier Berrios (Puerto Rican man) and Hakim Sutton (Black gay man) sued Rose Associates, Inc., their property manager, alleging violations of New York State and City Human Rights Laws for discrimination and retaliation.
- The dispute began after plaintiffs installed a security camera near an employee entrance, prompting a superintendent, Guerrero, to make a comment plaintiffs interpreted as discriminatory.
- Plaintiffs reported feeling harassed and subjected to retaliatory behavior from building staff and guests following their complaint.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims, arguing the conduct was either not discriminatory or not retaliatory.
- The court reviewed evidence related to the nature and context of comments made, as well as the alleged retaliatory acts concerning repairs and harassment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discriminatory Treatment (NYSHRL & NYCHRL) | Defendant, via employees, made comments and engaged in conduct motivated by plaintiffs' race and sexual orientation. | Comment(s) were not about protected status, amounted to a trivial inconvenience. | Dismissed: Comments were "petty slights/trivial inconveniences." |
| Retaliation | Negative actions (e.g., repairs, harassment, camera movement) followed complaint about discrimination, evidencing retaliation. | General repair issues common to all tenants; actions not targeted in retaliation. | Not dismissed: Defendant failed to provide a non-retaliatory explanation. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 29 NY3d 27 (court must view summary judgment evidence in light most favorable to non-movant)
- Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 33 NY3d 20 (summary judgment standard)
- Justinian Capital SPC v. WestLB AG, 28 NY3d 160 (evidentiary burden for summary judgment)
- Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 61 A.D.3d 62 (petty slights/trivial inconveniences standard for discrimination)
- Fletcher v. Dakota, Inc., 99 A.D.3d 43 (elements and burden shifting for retaliation claims)
- Delrio v. City of New York, 91 A.D.3d 900 (defendant's burden on summary judgment in retaliation cases)