Cenzon-Decarlo v. Mount Sinai Hospital
101 A.D.3d 924
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Defendants moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) before joinder of issue.
- The court dismissed the seventh cause of action (Civil Rights Law § 79-i) and converted other branches to a summary-judgment motion on first, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth causes of action.
- Court held there is no private right of action under Civil Rights Law § 79-i, citing authorities including Larson and others.
- The converted motion proceeded without petitioner receiving discovery.
- The court granted summary judgment on the third and fifth claims (discrimination under Executive Law § 296(1)(a) and Admin Code § 8-107(1)(a)), on the fourth and sixth claims (retaliation under Executive Law § 296(7) and Admin Code § 8-107(7)), on the eighth claim (intentional infliction of emotional distress), and on the first claim (NY Constitution, art. I, § 11).
- Remaining contentions deemed meritless; individual justifications are detailed in the body of the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Private right of action under §79-i | Plaintiff asserts §79-i provides a private claim for discrimination. | Defendants argue there is no private right of action under §79-i. | No private right of action under §79-i; affirmed dismissal. |
| Discrimination claims: Executive Law §296(1)(a) and Admin Code §8-107(1)(a) | Plaintiff contends discrimination occurred via adverse actions. | Defendants show no adverse action and provide legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons. | Summary judgment for defendants on these discrimination claims. |
| Retaliation claims: Executive Law §296(7) and Admin Code §8-107(7) | Plaintiff alleges retaliation for opposing discrimination. | Plaintiff did not show participation in protected activity or adverse action. | Summary judgment for defendants on retaliation claims. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Defendants’ conduct allegedly extreme and outrageous. | Defendants did not engage in extreme and outrageous conduct. | Summary judgment for defendants on IED claim. |
| First cause: NY Constitution, art. I, § 11 discrimination claim | Constitutional discrimination claim survives. | No cognizable constitutional discrimination claim proved. | Summary judgment for defendants on constitutional claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Larson v. Albany Med. Ctr., 173 Misc 2d 508 (1997) (no private right of action under §79-i)
- Whiting v. Incorporated Vil. of Old Brookville, 8 F. Supp. 2d 202 (ED NY 1998) (no private right of action under §79-i)
- Poughkeepsie Police Benevolent Assn. v. City of Poughkeepsie, 184 AD2d 501 (2001) (no private right of action under §79-i)
- Simpson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 112 AD2d 89 (1985) (cited in §79-i context)
- Brown v. State of New York, 89 NY2d 172 (1996) (statutory/constitutional discrimination framework)