| Chin v New York City Hous. Auth. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 03278 [106 AD3d 443] |
| May 7, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Amy Chin, Appellant, v New York City HousingAuthority, Respondent. |
—[*1] Kelly D. MacNeal, New York (Jeffrey Niederhoffer of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered August16, 2011, dismissing the complaints in this consolidated action, unanimously affirmed,without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 12, 2011, whichgranted defendant's motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, withoutcosts, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
Plaintiff, an accountant, born in China, alleges that defendant discriminated againsther on the basis of race, national origin and ethnicity when it repeatedly bypassed her forpromotions. However, the record belies her contention that no persons of Chinesedescent were promoted within defendant's finance department between 2002 and 2004,and plaintiff admits that numerous Chinese employees were promoted after 2006.Moreover, defendant produced evidence that it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasonsfor not promoting plaintiff to the positions of which she claims to have been wronglydeprived after August 2003, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact whetherdefendant's reasons were merely a pretext for discrimination (see Ferrante vAmerican Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629-630 [1997]; Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys.,Inc., 92 AD3d 29, 35-36 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 811[2012]).
Plaintiff also alleges that defendant retaliated against her for complaining that shehad been discriminated against (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295,312-313 [2004]; Fletcher vDakota, Inc., 99 AD3d 43, 51-52 [1st Dept 2012]). She asserts that at timesduring a period spanning at least six years, she was variously yelled at, subjected to theoccasional offensive remark, required to perform what she regarded as undesirableclerical tasks, and denied family and medical leave, and was overworked and subjectedto excessive scrutiny. However, none of this alleged conduct on defendant's part eitherconstituted an adverse employment action, under the New York State Human Rights Law(see Executive Law § 296 [7]; Silvis v City of New York, 95 AD3d 665, 665 [1st Dept2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 861 [2013]), or disadvantaged plaintiff, under theNew York City Human Rights Law (see Administrative Code of City of NY§ 8-107 [7]; Fletcher, 99 AD3d at 51-52). Plaintiff also asserts thatdefendant retaliated against her by transferring her from its headquarters in downtownManhattan to a field office in Harlem. However, she failed to raise an issue of factwhether the [*2]legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasonsproffered therefor by defendant were merely a pretext for discrimination.
As to plaintiff's hostile work environment claim, the alleged conduct and remarksplaintiff point to were not "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [her]employment" under the New York State Human Rights Law (see Forrest, 3NY3d at 310-311, quoting Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 US 17, 21 [1993];Ferrer v New York State Div. ofHuman Rights, 82 AD3d 431 [1st Dept 2011]). Nor has the plaintiffdemonstrated that she has been treated less well than other employees because of herprotected status; or that discrimination was one of the motivating factors for thedefendant's conduct (Williams vNew York City Hous. Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 75-76, 79-80 [1st Dept 2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.Concur—Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Manzanet-Daniels and Clark, JJ.[Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 31900(U).]