In Chamale-Eustace v. State Univ. of New York at Stony Brook, et al. No. 2023–11413, 2026 WL 158303 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan. 21, 2026), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a lower court’s decision, finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for sex discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New York State Human Rights Law.
The court summarized the facts as follows:
On or about August 14, 2021, the plaintiff, a female surgical technologist employed by the defendants State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook University Hospital, and Stony Brook Medicine (hereinafter collectively the Stony Brook defendants), assisted in a surgery performed by the defendant Matthew Berchuck, a surgeon employed by the Stony Brook defendants. The plaintiff alleged that during the surgery, Berchuck, inter alia, struck the plaintiff in the arm with a closed fist while holding a surgical instrument, threw surgical instruments and needles at her, and screamed and cursed at her. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that Berchuck belittled other female staff members who were assisting in the surgical procedure, but he did not treat male staff members in a similar manner. Further, the plaintiff alleged that the Stony Brook defendants were aware of and failed to address similar incidents of misconduct by Berchuck in the past.
Applying the law, the court held that, even accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference, the plaintiff failed to allege an adverse employment action that would be sufficient to state a cause of action alleging disparate treatment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The court also held that the plaintiff’s aiding and abetting claims asserted under the NYSHRL should likewise have been dismissed against the individual defendant, who “may not be held liable for aiding and abetting his own violation of” the statute.