In Berrios v. Rose Associates, Inc., No. 652417/2021, 2024 WL 5182598 (N.Y. Sup Ct, New York County Dec. 19, 2024), the court, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of housing discrimination asserted under the New York State Human Rights Law (N.Y. Executive Law § 296(5)) and the New York City Human Rights Law (N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(5)).
From the decision:
Unlawful harassment occurs when the following two elements are met: (1) the plaintiff is treated “less well” by the defendant, including its agents and employees, and (2) the treatment is caused by one or more protected characteristics. See Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 61 A.D.3d 62, 78 (1st Dep’t 2009). Both parties agree that a defendant can nonetheless avoid liability if it proves, as an affirmative defense, “that the conduct complained of consists of nothing more than what a reasonable victim of discrimination would consider ‘petty slights or trivial inconveniences.” Id.
Here, there is a single conversation stated by one superintendent when Plaintiffs refuse to remove a security camera after being asked to do so. The comment makes no specific reference to race or sexual orientation and is more akin to a “petty slight” or “trivial inconvenience.”
The court further explained that “[a]ny further actions alleged by Plaintiffs refer to conduct that occurred after this conversation and are therefore more properly asserted under the claim of retaliation after Plaintiffs complained to management about the comments made by the Super.”