Anderson v. Edmiston & Co., Inc., 131 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). · Go Syfert
Search
Anderson v. Edmiston & Co., Inc., 131 A.D.3d 416 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Vanderbilt Props. LLC v. Ladha (nysupctnewyork, 2025-05-15)
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Vanderbilt Props. LLC v. Ladha
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83 [1994]; Anderson v Edmiston & Co., 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Adeniji v. City of New York
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
He also points to Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc. ( 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crawford v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Moreover, under the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107) and amended New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296[h]), the allegations that Corn sexually assaulted plaintiff in 2015 and engaged in a pattern of gender-based misconduct in the workplace, demonstrate that she was subjected to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of her gender ( see Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc. , 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crawford v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2023 · confidence medium
Moreover, under the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107) and amended New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296[h]), the allegations that Corn sexually assaulted plaintiff in 2015 and engaged in a pattern of gender-based misconduct in the workplace, demonstrate that she was subjected to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of her gender ( see Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc. , 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. New York City Police Dept.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The foregoing establishes a claim for employment discrimination, via hostile work environment, under the State and City HRLs ( see Sims v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. , 168 AD3d 622 , 623 [1st Dept 2019]; Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc. , 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. New York City Police Dept.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
The foregoing establishes a claim for employment discrimination, via hostile work environment, under the State and City HRLs ( see Sims v Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y. , 168 AD3d 622 , 623 [1st Dept 2019]; Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc. , 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scollar v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
In deciding this appeal, we must liberally construe the complaint, as amplified by plaintiff's notice of claim, the transcript of the 50-h hearing and other papers submitted by the parties on the motions ( see Jeudy v City of New York , 142 AD3d 821, 821 [1st Dept 2016]; Kaminsky v FSP Inc. , 5 AD3d 251, 251-252 [1st Dept 2004]), presume the facts alleged in support of the complaint to be true, and afford plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc. , 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scollar v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
In deciding this appeal, we must liberally construe the complaint, as amplified by plaintiff's notice of claim, the transcript of the 50-h hearing and other papers submitted by the parties on the motions ( see Jeudy v City of New York , 142 AD3d 821, 821 [1st Dept 2016]; Kaminsky v FSP Inc. , 5 AD3d 251, 251-252 [1st Dept 2004]), presume the facts alleged in support of the complaint to be true, and afford plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc. , 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: compare · confidence medium
The complaint does not allege that any decisionmakers made remarks that showed any discriminatory intent ( Whitfield-Ortiz v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 116 AD3d 580 , 581 [1st Dept 2014]; compare Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc. , 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]), nor does it allege facts that would establish that similarly situated persons who did not share his alleged disabilities were treated more favorably than he was ( see Askin v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y. , 110 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2013]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. City of New York
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · signal: compare · confidence medium
The complaint does not allege that any decisionmakers made remarks that showed any discriminatory intent ( Whitfield-Ortiz v Department of Educ. of City of N.Y., 116 AD3d 580 , 581 [1st Dept 2014]; compare Anderson v Edmiston & Co., Inc. , 131 AD3d 416, 417 [1st Dept 2015]), nor does it allege facts that would establish that similarly situated persons who did not share his alleged disabilities were treated more favorably than he was ( see Askin v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y. , 110 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2013]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Elizabeth Hasbrouck Anderson, Respondent,
v.
Edmiston & Company, Inc., Appellant
14724 150407/13.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Aug 4, 2015.
131 A.D.3d 416
Friedman, Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter, Kapnick.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

[*417] Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered December 20, 2013, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant is a New York corporation specializing in the sale, charter, management, and new construction of yachts around the world. Defendant employed plaintiff as a Charter Assistant from July 2008 until November 8, 2012, when allegedly she “was effectively terminated . . . as a result of her complaint of gender discrimination.” According to the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff’s supervisor harbored a discriminatory animus against women and made numerous sexist and misogynist remarks, both directed at her and in her presence.

Plaintiffs allegations suffice to state claims of gender-based employment discrimination (see Serdans v New York & Presbyt. Hosp., 112 AD3d 449, 450 [1st Dept 2013]; Askin v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 621, 622 [1st Dept 2013]) and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (see Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99 AD3d 43, 51-52 [1st Dept 2012]; Albunio v City of New York, 67 AD3d 407 [1st Dept 2009], affd 16 NY3d 472 [2011]). In particular, according her the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 151-152 [2002]; Askin, 110 AD3d at 622), plaintiff has adequately alleged that she was terminated, for purposes of stating the foregoing claims.

Plaintiff has also adequately alleged a claim for hostile work environment by alleging that her supervisor routinely made deprecatory, vulgar, and offensive remarks about women, including that they were useful only for administrative services and sex (see Salemi v Gloria’s Tribeca Inc., 115 AD3d 569, 569-570 [1st Dept 2014]; Gaffney v City of New York, 101 AD3d 410, 410 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 21 NY3d 858 [2013]).

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.