Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
62 New York opinions name it 9 courts 1978–2026 24 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Feingold v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2026Feingold v State of New York , 366 F3d 138, 158 (2d Cir 2004). 2026Feingold v State of New York , 366 F3d 138, 158 (2d Cir 2004). | 3 | 3 |
James v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2025However, the continuing violation doctrine permits consideration of all actions relevant to a discrimination claim, including those that would otherwise be time-barred, so long as such actions are part of a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the limitations period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint (see James v City of New York, 144 AD3d 466, 467 [1st Dept 2016] [emphasis added]; see also Ferraro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 115 AD3d 497 , 498 [1st Dept 2014] [finding that to the extent any of the complained acts are part of a single continuing patte 2025However, the continuing violation doctrine permits consideration of all actions relevant to a discrimination claim, including those that would otherwise be time-barred, so long as such actions are part of a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the limitations period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint (see James v City of New York, 144 AD3d 466, 467 [1st Dept 2016] [emphasis added]; see also Ferraro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 115 AD3d 497 , 498 [1st Dept 2014] [finding that to the extent any of the complained acts are part of a single continuing patte | 3 | 3 |
Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.green2 sentences2007Corp. ( 58 NY2d 293, 307 [1983]), we concluded that the history of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 290 et seq. ) compelled the conclusion that the statute of limitations for a discrimination claim is three years. 2007Corp. ( 58 NY2d 293, 307 [1983]), we concluded that the history of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 290 et seq.) compelled the conclusion that the statute of limitations for a discrimination claim is three years. | 3 | 3 |
Williams v. New York City Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2024Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 66 [1st Dept 2009]). 2024Each of these cases considered the appropriate standard for evaluating a discrete aspect of a discrimination claim—in Williams , whether harassment must be severe and pervasive ( 61 AD3d 62 ); in Bennett , when evidence of pretext allowed a case to proceed to trial ( 92 AD3d 29 ); and in Albunio , whether implicit opposition to discrimination was sufficient to support a retaliation claim ( 16 NY3d 472 ). | 2 | 3 |
Ferraro v. New York City Department of Educationgreen2 sentences2025However, the continuing violation doctrine permits consideration of all actions relevant to a discrimination claim, including those that would otherwise be time-barred, so long as such actions are part of a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the limitations period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint (see James v City of New York, 144 AD3d 466, 467 [1st Dept 2016] [emphasis added]; see also Ferraro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 115 AD3d 497 , 498 [1st Dept 2014] [finding that to the extent any of the complained acts are part of a single continuing patte 2025However, the continuing violation doctrine permits consideration of all actions relevant to a discrimination claim, including those that would otherwise be time-barred, so long as such actions are part of a single continuing pattern of unlawful conduct extending into the limitations period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint (see James v City of New York, 144 AD3d 466, 467 [1st Dept 2016] [emphasis added]; see also Ferraro v New York City Dept. of Educ., 115 AD3d 497 , 498 [1st Dept 2014] [finding that to the extent any of the complained acts are part of a single continuing patte | 2 | 2 |
Olsen v. Stark Homes, Inc.green2 sentences2024"To prove a discrimination claim [under the FHA] based upon a failure to accommodate a person's disability, the person must establish that he or she is disabled within the meaning of the statute, that the charged party knew or reasonably should have known about the disability, 'that the accommodation was likely necessary to afford the [disabled] person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling,' that the requested accommodation was reasonable and that the charged party refused to make the accommodation" ( Hollandale Apts. & Health Club, LLC v Bonesteel , 173 AD3d 55, 61 [2019], quotin 2024"To prove a discrimination claim [under the FHA] based upon a failure to accommodate a person's disability, the person must establish that he or she is disabled within the meaning of the statute, that the charged party knew or reasonably should have known about the disability, 'that the accommodation was likely necessary to afford the [disabled] person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling,' that the requested accommodation was reasonable and that the charged party refused to make the accommodation" ( Hollandale Apts. & Health Club, LLC v Bonesteel , 173 AD3d 55, 61 [2019], quotin | 2 | 2 |
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2008A hostile work environment claim exists “ ‘[w]hen the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment’ ” (Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 310 [2004], quoting Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 US 17, 21 [1993] [citation omitted]; Matter of Anagnostakos v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 46 AD3d 992 [2007]). 2003The allegations concerning the retirement offer and plaintiff’s salary do not show an adverse change in plaintiffs employment (see Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629 [1997]), and the allegations concerning the epithets do not show who did it, when and how often it occurred, how it affected, plaintiffs ability to do his job and whether he ever complained about it (see Harris v Forklift Sys., 510 US 17, 21-23 [1993]). | 2 | 2 |
Askin v. Department of Educationgreen2 sentences2024The elements of a discrimination claim under the NYCHRL largely mirror the foregoing, except that a plaintiff need not plead that plaintiff suffered an “adverse employment action,” but only that plaintiff was “treated differently” (Askin v Dept. of Educ. of the City of New York, 110 AD3d 621 , 622 [1st Dept 2013]). 2024The elements of a discrimination claim under the NYCHRL largely mirror the foregoing, except that a plaintiff need not plead that she suffered an "adverse employment action," but only that she was "treated differently" because of her gender (see Askin v Dept. ofEduc. of the City ofNew York, 110 AD3d 621 , 622 [1st Dept 2013]; see also Williams v. New York City Haus. | 1 | 3 |
Ferrante v. American Lung Ass'ngreen2 sentences2006First, plaintiffs must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of discrimination ( Ferrante, supra; see also Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248, 252-253 [1981]). 2003The allegations concerning the retirement offer and plaintiff’s salary do not show an adverse change in plaintiffs employment (see Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629 [1997]), and the allegations concerning the epithets do not show who did it, when and how often it occurred, how it affected, plaintiffs ability to do his job and whether he ever complained about it (see Harris v Forklift Sys., 510 US 17, 21-23 [1993]). | 1 | 2 |
MATTER OF TOWN OF HUNTINGTON v. New York State Div. of Human Rightsgreen1 sentence2026Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the petition, and we affirm.</p> <p>"The extraordinary writ of prohibition is available to address 'whether [a] body or officer proceeded, is proceeding or is about to proceed without or in excess of jurisdiction' " (<i>Matter of Town of Huntington v New York State Div. of Human Rights</i>, 82 NY2d 783, 786 [1993], quoting CPLR 7803 [2]; <i>see Matter of Niagara Frontier Transp. | 1 | 1 |
Radler v. Catholic Health System of Long Island, Inc.green1 sentence2025“To establish entitlement to summary judgment in a case alleging discrimination, the defendants must demonstrate either the plaintiff’s inability to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether that reason was pretextual” (Reichman v City of New York, 144 AD3d 781, 782 [2nd Dept 2016]). | 1 | 1 |
Muldrow v. City of St. Louisgreen2 sentences2025The Muldrow Court found that no such reasoning was applicable to the discrimination claim before it and applied a standard that plaintiff need only [*2]allege some disadvantageous change in an employment term or condition ( id. at 354, 357 ). 2025The Court found that it would be a "mismatch" to apply the same legal standard to both retaliation and discrimination claims under Title VII because the standard applicable to retaliation claims was adopted "for reasons peculiar to the retaliation context" ( id. at 357 ). | 1 | 1 |
Demir v. Sandoz Inc.green1 sentence2024The contention that he was written up and therefore passed over for promotions state a claim for disadvantageous treatment (see Demir v Sandoz Inc., 155 AD3d 464, 466 [1st Dept 2017] [under SHRL]; James v City of New York, 144 AD3d 466, 467 [1st Dept 2016] [under CHRL]). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Mutual Apts., Inc. v. New York City Commn. on Human Rightsgreen2 sentences2024"In order for a [person] to state a prima facie case of disability based discrimination under the NYCHRL, the [person] must show that: (1) he or she has a disability, (2) the covered entity knew or should have known of the disability, (3) an accommodation would enable the [person] to use or enjoy his or her housing accommodation, and (4) the covered entity refused to provide an accommodation" ( Matter of Mutual Apts., Inc. v New York City Commn. on Human Rights , 203 AD3d 1154, 1157 [2022]). 2024"In order for a [person] to state a prima facie case of disability based discrimination under the NYCHRL, the [person] must show that: (1) he or she has a disability, (2) the covered entity knew or should have known of the disability, (3) an accommodation would enable the [person] to use or enjoy his or her housing accommodation, and (4) the covered entity refused to provide an accommodation" ( Matter of Mutual Apts., Inc. v New York City Commn. on Human Rights , 203 AD3d 1154, 1157 [2022]). | 1 | 1 |
Hollandale Apts. & Health Club, LLC v. Bonesteelgreen2 sentences2024"To prove a discrimination claim [under the FHA] based upon a failure to accommodate a person's disability, the person must establish that he or she is disabled within the meaning of the statute, that the charged party knew or reasonably should have known about the disability, 'that the accommodation was likely necessary to afford the [disabled] person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling,' that the requested accommodation was reasonable and that the charged party refused to make the accommodation" ( Hollandale Apts. & Health Club, LLC v Bonesteel , 173 AD3d 55, 61 [2019], quotin 2024"To prove a discrimination claim [under the FHA] based upon a failure to accommodate a person's disability, the person must establish that he or she is disabled within the meaning of the statute, that the charged party knew or reasonably should have known about the disability, 'that the accommodation was likely necessary to afford the [disabled] person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling,' that the requested accommodation was reasonable and that the charged party refused to make the accommodation" ( Hollandale Apts. & Health Club, LLC v Bonesteel , 173 AD3d 55, 61 [2019], quotin | 1 | 1 |
Farrell v. New York City Police Departmentgreen1 sentence2024Police Dep't , 37 NY2d 843, 843 (1975), where the court found it reasonable for the NYPD to base termination on their chief surgeon's medical opinion, despite conflicting medical opinions presented by the appellant. | 1 | 1 |
| Knight v. County of Nassaugreen | 1 | 1 |
| Makinen v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mock v. City of Romegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Raneri v. McCAREYgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Medical Express Ambulance Corp. v. Kirklandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Skluth v. United Merchants & Manufacturers, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Strauss v. New York State Department of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mills v. County of Monroegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mills v. County of Monroegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Monsanto v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Mills v. County of Monroegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blindgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sorrentino v. Bohbot Entertainment & Media, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bernstein v. 1995 Associatesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Claim of Chengreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stevens v. Board of Education of McGraw Central School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re the Claim of Altmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Steadman v. Sinclairgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gentile v. Town of Huntingtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Falbaum v. Pomerantzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Claim of Stabak v. ISS Internationalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Corning Glass Works v. Ovsanikgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Trovato v. Air Express Internationalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Herrington v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad
green
2 sentences2024Co ., 118 AD3d 544 , 544 [1st Dept 2014]; Askin v Dep't of Educ. 2024Co ., 118 AD3d 544 , 544 [1st Dept 2014]; Askin v Dep't of Educ. | 4 | 2024–2024 |
Vig v. New York Hairspray Co.
green
2 sentences2024Within the context of a motion to dismiss pertaining to an employment discrimination action, a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination need not plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination but need only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds (citing Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P. , 67 AD3d 140 [1st Dept 2009]). ( See NYSCEF Doc No. 25, Pl mem law at 2.) Plaintiff also argues that temporal proximity establishes prima facie entitlement to a discrimination claim as Plaintiff disclosed her disability and need for an accommodation to her manag 2024Within the context of a motion to dismiss pertaining to an employment discrimination action, a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination need not plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case of discrimination but need only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds (citing Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P. , 67 AD3d 140 [1st Dept 2009]). ( See NYSCEF Doc No. 25, Pl mem law at 2.) Plaintiff also argues that temporal proximity establishes prima facie entitlement to a discrimination claim as Plaintiff disclosed her disability and need for an accommodation to her manag | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Albunio v. City of New York
green
2 sentences2024Each of these cases considered the appropriate standard for evaluating a discrete aspect of a discrimination claim—in Williams , whether harassment must be severe and pervasive ( 61 AD3d 62 ); in Bennett , when evidence of pretext allowed a case to proceed to trial ( 92 AD3d 29 ); and in Albunio , whether implicit opposition to discrimination was sufficient to support a retaliation claim ( 16 NY3d 472 ). 2017Further, although the additional facts she seeks to add in her proposed amended complaint might state a discrimination claim that could be pursued by her supervisor (see Albunio v City of New York, 16 NY3d 472 [2011]), they offer no basis to infer sexual orientation discrimination against her. | 2 | 2017–2024 |
Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg
green
2 sentences2024The Court finds that these factual allegations manifest a cause of action for aiding and abetting an unlawful discriminatory practice cognizable at law ( Guggenheimer , 43 NY2d at 275 ; Executive Law § 296 [1] [e]; NYC Admin. 2024The Court finds that these factual allegations manifest a cause of action for aiding and abetting an unlawful discriminatory practice cognizable at law ( Guggenheimer , 43 NY2d at 275 ; Executive Law § 296 [1] [e]; NYC Admin. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Gibson v. Carrier Corp.
green
2 sentences2013Moreover, inasmuch as the settlement agreement here purported to resolve the discrimination claim after the WCLJ had directed the employer to reinstate claimant and pay her back wages and counsel fees, such agreement had a direct impact upon benefits awarded to claimant pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, and the Board had continuing jurisdiction over the claim for such benefits (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 123; Matter of Gibson v Carrier Corp., 307 AD2d at 618 ; compare Warden v E.R. 2013Moreover, inasmuch as the settlement agreement here purported to resolve the discrimination claim after the WCLJ had directed the employer to reinstate claimant and pay her back wages and counsel fees, such agreement had a direct impact upon benefits awarded to claimant pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, and the Board had continuing jurisdiction over the claim for such benefits (see Workers’ Compensation Law § 123; Matter of Gibson v Carrier Corp., 307 AD2d at 618 ; compare Warden v E.R. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Warden v. E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Squibb & Sons, Inc., 840 F Supp at 208 ). 2013Squibb & Sons, Inc., 840 F Supp at 208 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp.
green
1 sentence2026Corp. , 22 NY3d at 837 ; Briffa v NY State Dept. of Health , ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 02180, *3-4 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Briffa v. New York State Dept. of Health
green
1 sentence2026Corp. , 22 NY3d at 837 ; Briffa v NY State Dept. of Health , ___ AD3d at ___, 2026 NY Slip Op 02180, *3-4 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Bennett v. Health Management Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Each of these cases considered the appropriate standard for evaluating a discrete aspect of a discrimination claim—in Williams , whether harassment must be severe and pervasive ( 61 AD3d 62 ); in Bennett , when evidence of pretext allowed a case to proceed to trial ( 92 AD3d 29 ); and in Albunio , whether implicit opposition to discrimination was sufficient to support a retaliation claim ( 16 NY3d 472 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rojas v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester
green
1 sentence2022Further, the Human Rights Law provides that it "shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under [the Human Rights Law], or to attempt to do so" (Executive Law § 296 [6]), including harassment based on sex or gender identity or expression ( see Executive Law § 296 [1] [h]). "[A]n individual defendant may be held liable under the aiding and abetting provision of the [Human Rights Law] if he [or she] actually participates in the conduct giving rise to a discrimination claim" ( Rojas v Roman Catholic Di | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Rojas v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rochester
green
1 sentence2022Further, the Human Rights Law provides that it "shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of any of the acts forbidden under [the Human Rights Law], or to attempt to do so" (Executive Law § 296 [6]), including harassment based on sex or gender identity or expression ( see Executive Law § 296 [1] [h]). "[A]n individual defendant may be held liable under the aiding and abetting provision of the [Human Rights Law] if he [or she] actually participates in the conduct giving rise to a discrimination claim" ( Rojas v Roman Catholic Di | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth.
neutral
1 sentence2022Auth. , 61 AD3d 62, 80 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Matter of Singh v. New York State Div. of Human Rights
green
1 sentence2021Similarly, in Matter of Singh v New York State Div. of Human Rights ( 186 AD3d 1694, 1695 ), the plaintiff was not collaterally estopped from filing a discrimination claim with the New York State Division of Human Rights over race-based issues beyond the more narrow related holdover issues previously determined by the Housing Court. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Silvis v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2018However, it does not raise an issue of fact as to the discrimination claim under the State HRL, because it fails to show an adverse employment action within the meaning of that statute ( see Silvis v City of New York , 95 AD3d 665 [1st Dept 2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 861 [2013]). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Matz v. Prospect Energy Corp. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Brown v. Foster green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Brennan v. Metropolitan Opera Ass'n green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Matter of Johnson v. County of Orange green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Wrenn v. Verizon green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Polvino v. Island Group Administration, Inc. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Anagnostakos v. New York State Division of Human Rights green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Dunn v. Fishbein green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| New York City Transit Authority v. State Division of Human Rights green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Stabak v. ISS International neutral | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| People v. Smocum green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Claim of Jirak v. Federal Express Corp. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Louis Harris & Associates, Inc. v. deLeon green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Bernstein v. 1995 Associates green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State Division of Human Rights v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State Division of Human Rights v. Board of Education of the School District of Niagara Falls green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Harvey v. NYRAC, INC. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Town of Huntington v. New York State Division of Human Rights neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Udell v. Haas green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Megin Realty Corp. v. Baron green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Viskovich v. Walsh-Fuller-Slattery green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Viskovich v. Walsh-Fuller-Slattery green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State Division of Human Rights v. Burroughs Corp. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State Division of Human Rights v. Burroughs Corp. green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.