Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department reversed a lower court order denying summary judgment on a retaliation claim brought under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court found that the respondent failed to raise triable issues of fact regarding an employment relationship with the condominium defendant, which is a prerequisite for liability. The court also declined to consider a new independent contractor argument raised for the first time on appeal and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal as abandoned due to failure to brief grounds for affirmative relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper because Erdman failed to raise factual issues showing an employment relationship required for retaliation liability under the City HRL.
- Whether Erdman may maintain a retaliation action as an independent contractor.
- Whether the cross‑appeal was abandoned for failure to raise grounds for affirmative relief.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was proper because Erdman did not raise any factual issues showing the requisite employment relationship with Manhattan Place Condominium.
- The cross‑appeal was dismissed as abandoned because the appellant failed to raise any grounds for affirmative relief in the brief.
Factual background
Tyler Erdman, an independent contractor for Manhattan Place Condominium, alleged retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law after a dispute with the condominium. The lower court found no factual dispute regarding the required employment relationship and denied MPC's motion for summary judgment.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, New York County denied MPC's motion for summary judgment dismissing Erdman's retaliation claim under the City HRL. MPC appealed; the Appellate Division reversed and granted summary judgment. Erdman's cross‑appeal was dismissed as abandoned.