Maltese v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2022 NY Slip Op 02626 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · Go Syfert
Search
Maltese v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2022 NY Slip Op 02626 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2024–2025 · …broadly to include not just those with formal managerial or titular authority over a plaintiff, but as applicable to those who wield any ability to dictate or administer the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's employment at p. 543 ⚠ not in text
26 citation events (26 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Yuliano v. Central Park W. Orthodontics P.C. (nysupctnewyork, 2025-04-22)
Treatment trajectory · 2022 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2022 2024 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yuliano v. Central Park W. Orthodontics P.C.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
Auth., 204 AD3d 542, 544 [1st Dept 2022] ["[t]he complaint cannot fairly be read to include a separate hostile work environment claim based on plaintiff's post- complaint treatment, and plaintiff cannot properly raise one in opposition to summary judgment"]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Young v. Bessemer Trust Co., N.A.
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · confidence medium
“As required by the statute's liberal rule of construction,” a supervisory role is construed “broadly to include not just those with formal managerial or titular authority over a plaintiff, but as applicable to those who wield any ability to dictate or administer the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's employment” (Russell v New York University, 42 NY3d 377 , 389-390 [2024]; Melendez v New York City Transit Auth., 204 AD3d 542, 543 [1st Dept. 2022][issue of fact precluded summary judgment where individual defendant “had the de facto ability to direct oth…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Khatskevich v. Victor
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Auth., 204 AD3d 542,542 [1st Dept 2022].
examined Cited as authority (rule) Parham v. City of New York (3×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Here, the complaint plausibly pleads hostile work environment claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL ( see Kwong , 204 AD3d at 445; Alshami v City Univ. of NY , 203 AD3d 592 , 592-593 [1st Dept 2022]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hussain v. City of New York
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Auth., 204 AD3d 542, 544 [1st Dept 2022] [citations omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Veras v. City of New York
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Moreover, Plaintiff alleged conduct that demonstrates Dr. Henry’s and Dr. Santucci’s “ability to direct other employees, notwithstanding [their] official title” (Melendez v New York City Transit Auth., 204 AD3d 542, 543 [1st Dept 2022]; NYSCEF Doc No. 1, verified complaint ¶¶ 25, 38, 44, 65, 66).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Suzan Russell v. New York University
NY · 2024 · confidence medium
Melendez v NYC Transit Auth., 204 AD3d 542, 543 [1st 3 In comparison, the State HRL does not expressly address discrimination directly committed by an employee (see Executive Law § 296 [1] [prohibiting discrimination only by an “employer”]; § 296 [6] [prohibiting “any person” from aiding and abetting discrimination]; see also Patrowich v Chemical Bank, 63 NY2d 541, 542-543 [1984]). - 13 - - 14 - No. 37 Dept 2022] [evidence that defendant “had the de facto ability to direct other employees, notwithstanding his official title” precluded summary judgment on City HRL claim]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Parham v. City of New York
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
"As required by the statute's liberal rule of construction," a supervisory role is construed "broadly to include not just those with formal managerial or titular authority over a plaintiff, but as applicable to those who wield any ability to dictate or administer the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of the plaintiff's employment" ( id .; see also Melendez v New York City Transit Auth ., 204 AD3d 542, 543 [1st Dept 2022][issue of fact precluded summary judgment where individual defendant "had the de facto ability to direct other employees, notwithstanding his official title"]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Maltese
v.
Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
Index No. 22496/15E, 43003/18E Appeal No. 15787 Case No. 2021-00846.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 21, 2022.
2022 NY Slip Op 02626
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
Maltese v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (2022 NY Slip Op 02626)
Maltese v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.
2022 NY Slip Op 02626
Decided on April 21, 2022
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: April 21, 2022
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Kern, Singh, Kennedy, Mendez, JJ.

Index No. 22496/15E, 43003/18E Appeal No. 15787 Case No. 2021-00846

[*1]Antonio Maltese et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al., Defendants-Respondents.



Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v

Techno Consult, Inc., Third-Party Defendant.



Techno Consult, Inc., Second Third-Party Plaintiff,

v

Yonkers Contracting Company, Inc. Second Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.




Sacks and Sacks LLP, New York (Scott N. Singer of counsel), for appellants.

London Fischer LLP, New York (Daniel C. Rosenberg of counsel), for respondents.



Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered September 4, 2020, which denied plaintiffs' motion to sever the third-party actions without prejudice and with leave to renew, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to sever the third-party actions notwithstanding any delay in commencing those actions, because plaintiffs made no showing that the main action will be delayed to their prejudice, and the discovery rights of the third-party actions can be accommodated (see CPLR §§ 603 and 1010; Nielsen v New York State Dormitory Auth., 84 AD3d 519, 520 [1st Dept 2011]). The main action and the third-party actions should be tried together as they involve common factual and legal issues that are not overly complex and the interests of judicial economy and consistency will be served by having a single trial (see Luckey v City of New York, 177 AD3d 460 [1st Dept 2019]; Wilson v City of New York, 1 AD3d 157, 157 [1st Dept 2003]).THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: April 21, 2022