In Bennett v. State, No. 152438/2023, 2024 WL 4896499 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Nov. 21, 2024), the court denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment against defendant on plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment and retaliation.
This decision illustrates the general principle that courts are reluctant to grant summary judgment at a stage in the litigation prior to discovery.
From the decision:
This is an action alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law (see generally NYSCEF Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges that from May 2019 to June of 2020, she served as an executive assistant to Governor Andrew Cuomo. She alleges that during that time, Governor Cuomo assigned her humiliating and demeaning tasks, and made probing questions into her personal life and sexual relationships. Plaintiff quit after taking medical leave. Plaintiff participated in an independent investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Governor Cuomo. The investigators found that Governor Cuomo sexually harassed Plaintiff (NYSCEF Doc. 20).
Plaintiff has also initiated a parallel lawsuit pending in the Southern District of New York captioned Bennett v. Cuomo, et. al. (the “Federal Case”). In the federal case, discovery is still ongoing. In this case, there has not yet been a preliminary conference. Rather, the request for judicial intervention was only filed once Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff relies on findings made in the Attorney General’s independent investigative report as conclusive evidence she is entitled to summary judgment. In opposition, Defendant argues the motion is premature, as depositions have not taken place in either this action or the Federal Case. Defendant further argues that Governor Cuomo has denied many of the allegations against him and discovery must ensue to test those denials, and to question both parties. …
“Summary judgment is a drastic remedy, to be granted only where the moving party has tendered sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact.” (Vega v Restani Const. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]). The moving party’s “burden is a heavy one and on a motion for summary judgment, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” (Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 833 [2014]). Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion to produce evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of fact which require a trial (See e.g., Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).
Generally, summary judgment prior to the exchange of discovery is premature (Reid v City of New York, 168 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2019]; Guzman v City of New York, 171 AD3d 653 [1st Dept 2019]; Blech v West Park Presbyterian Church, 97 AD3d 443 [1st Dept 2012]). This is especially true in a fact intensive case such as this where depositions have not yet occurred (see, e.g. Elando Medical PLLC v Trump Palace Condominium, 194 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2021]; Levine v Feldman, 215 AD2d 182 [1st Dept 1995]. Here, there have been no depositions, and paper discovery appears to be incomplete in both this action and the related federal action. Curiously, Plaintiff only moved for summary judgment in this action and not the related federal action. Defendant argues that it is entitled to take depositions to defend properly against the allegations in this case. This Court agrees granting summary judgment here would be premature.
In light of the foregoing, the court denied plaintiff’s motion without prejudice, with leave to renew her motion upon completion of further discovery.