In Wolf v. Imus, 2018 NY Slip Op 51361(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Sept. 27, 2018) (J. d’Auguste), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s (an 80 year-old Florida resident) age discrimination claims against radio personality Don Imus et al.
This was based on both geography and the merits. Here is an excerpt from the decision:
Due to the fact that Wolf is a Florida resident that worked in Florida, he lacks any viable claim under either the NYSHRL or the NYCHRL since the impact of any alleged discriminatory conduct would have been in Florida. Hoffman v Parade Publs., 15 NY3d 285, 291 (2010). The Court of Appeals, in Hoffman, expressly concluded that, except for non-residents working in New York, these two statutory schemes do not protect non-residents of the State. Id. at 290-91. As Wolf is neither a resident of, nor employed in, the City or State of New York, his claims under both the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL are dismissed.
Moreover, reaching the merits of Wolf’s claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, Wolf has not alleged any potentially meritorious factual basis for any of his causes of action, and instead relies on a series of blanket conclusory assertions and assumptions. Indeed, the only specificity contained in complaint are stray comments made by Imus, a member of same protected class as Wolf. Serdans v. New York & Presbyterian Hosp., 112 AD3d 449, 450 (1st Dep’t 2013). For this reason, Wolf’s claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL must also be dismissed.