Sukram v Corporation

Sukram v Anjost Corp. 2010 NY Slip Op 02979 [72 AD3d 491] April 13, 2010 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Shareen Sukram, Appellant,
v
Anjost Corporation et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Weiss & Rosenbloom, P.C., New York (Barry D. Weiss of counsel), for appellant.

Venable LLP, New York (Shaffin A. Datoo of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered on January 23, 2009, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint alleging claims of unlawful discrimination due to sexual harassment and retaliatory firing, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Inasmuch as there are triable issues of fact as to, inter alia, whether defendants knew of their senior manager's acts of sexual harassment, the extent of such conduct, and whether they encouraged or condoned it (see Clayton v Best Buy Co., Inc., 48 AD3d 277 [2008]), the grant of summary judgment dismissing the claims of unlawful discrimination under both the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law was not warranted.

Consequently, since disposition of the discrimination claims must await adjudication by a factfinder, dismissal of the claims of unlawful retaliatory discharge from employment under both the State and City Human Rights Laws was also precluded. In any event, the circumstances surrounding the alleged unlawful discharge present their own unique questions, including whether the reasons given by defendants were pretextual, that cannot be resolved on this record. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.