prima facie violation in New York

2026As to the retaliation claim, defendants seeking summary judgment must either conclusively refute a plaintiff's prima facie claim that "(1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action" ( Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind , 3 NY3d at 312-313 ; see Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Human Rights , 41 NY3d 326 , 331 [2024]), or provide legitimate, non

2026As to the retaliation claim, defendants seeking summary judgment must either conclusively refute a plaintiff's prima facie claim that "(1) she has engaged in protected activity, (2) her employer was aware that she participated in such activity, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action based upon her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action" ( Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind , 3 NY3d at 312-313; see Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Human Rights , 41 NY3d 326, 331 [2024]), or provide legitimate, non-p

2020"An information that does not satisfy [the prima facie requirement] by failing to allege a complete element of the charged offense is jurisdictionally defective and may be challenged on appeal even though a defendant never raised the alleged insufficiency [previously]" ( People v Kalin , 12 NY3d at 229 [citations omitted]), with the exception of a claim of hearsay, which was implicitly waived under the circumstances presented herein when defendant proceeded to trial without objection ( see Casey , 95 NY2d at 366 ).

2017Giving these allegations "a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" ( Casey , 95 NY2d at 360 ), and "drawing reasonable inferences from all the facts set forth in the accusatory instrument" and supporting deposition ( People v Jackson , 18 NY3d 738 , 747 [2012]), we find that they were sufficient, for pleading purposes, to meet the prima facie requirement of an information charging the offense of theft of services ( see Penal Law § 165.15 [3]; People v Pin , 41 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2013 NY Slip Op 51681[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2013]; People v Adam O. , 45 Misc 3d 48 [App Term, 1st Dep

2025However, the prima facie requirement for the facial sufficiency of an information "is not the same as the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial, nor does it rise to the level of legally sufficient evidence that is necessary to survive a motion to dismiss based upon the proof presented at trial" ( People v. Smalls , 26 NY3d 1064, 1066 [2015]).

2025However, the prima facie requirement for the facial sufficiency of an information "is not the same as the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial, nor does it rise to the level of legally sufficient evidence that is necessary to survive a motion to dismiss based upon the proof presented at trial" ( People v. Smalls , 26 NY3d 1064, 1066 [2015]).

2025"To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case [under . . . (the) NYCHRL], a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant's explanations were pretextual" ( Reichman v City of New York , 179 AD3d 1115, 1119-1120 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Delrio v City of New York , 91 AD3d 900, 901 [2012]).

2023"To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case, a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant's explanations were pretextual" ( Delrio v City of New York , 91 AD3d 900, 901 ; see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind , 3 NY3d at 312-314 ; Langton v Warwick Val.

2013Park S., LLC, 33 AD3d 491, 492 [1st Dept 2006] [“To make a prima facie claim of fraud, the complaint must allege misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, falsity, scienter on the part of the wrongdoer, justifiable reliance and resulting injury”]), plaintiff’s amended complaint nevertheless fails to establish justifiable reliance as a matter of law.

2013Park S., LLC, 33 AD3d 491, 492 [1st Dept 2006] [“To make a prima facie claim of fraud, the complaint must allege misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, falsity, scienter on the part of the wrongdoer, justifiable reliance and resulting injury”]), plaintiff’s amended complaint nevertheless fails to establish justifiable reliance as a matter of law.

2026To establish a prima facie claim of retaliation under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) he engaged in a protected activity, such as requesting a reasonable accommodation or opposing discriminatory conduct; (2) the defendant was aware of that protected activity; (3) the defendant thereafter took an action that was reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in such activity; and (4) a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory act (see Albunio v City of New York, 16 NY3d 472, 479 [2011]; Brightman v Prison Health Serv., Inc., 108 AD

2024A defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing a claim for retaliation “must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s explanations were pretextual’” (Brightman, 108 AD3d at 740-741 [citation omitted]).

2016The prima facie requirement for an information is a lower threshold than the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required at trial (People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677, 680 [1999]).

2008While the requirement of nonhearsay allegations (the prima facie requirement) has been described as a “much more demanding standard” than a showing of reasonable cause alone (People v Alejandro, 70 NY2d at 138 , quoting 1968 Rep of Temp St Commn on Rev of Penal Law and Crim Code, Introductory Comments, at xviii), it is nevertheless a much lower threshold than the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial (People v Henderson, 92 NY2d 677, 680 [1999]; People v Hyde, 302 AD2d 101 [1st Dept 2003]).

2025The prima-facie standard is "necessary because of the 'unique function that an information serves'" under our criminal procedure law. ( People v. Parsons , 69 Misc 3d 11, 14 [App. Term, 1st Dep't 2020] [quoting Alejandro , 70 NY2d at 137 ]).

2025The prima-facie standard is "necessary because of the 'unique function that an information serves'" under our criminal procedure law. ( People v. Parsons , 69 Misc 3d 11, 14 [App. Term, 1st Dep't 2020] [quoting Alejandro , 70 NY2d at 137 ]).

2012“In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process” (Duren v Missouri, 439 US 357, 364 [1979]; see Guzman, 60 NY2d at 410 ).

2012“In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process” (Duren v Missouri, 439 US 357, 364 [1979]; see Guzman, 60 NY2d at 410 ).

2009Flaintiff met his initial burden inasmuch as “[t]he collapse of a work site itself ‘constitute[s] a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1)’ ” (Bradford v State of New York, 17 AD3d 995 , 997 [2005], quoting Richardson v Matarese, 206 AD2d 353, 353 [1994]), and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the conduct of plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries (cf. Tronolone v Praxair, Inc., 22 AD3d 1031, 1033 [2005]; see generally Felker v Corning Inc., 90 NY2d 219, 224 [1997]).

2008Div. Marriott Corp., 77 AD2d 585, 588 [2d Dept 1980].) It is now simply said — perhaps too simply — that “[t]he collapse of a work site itself constituted] a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).” (See Beard v State of New York, 25 AD3d 989, 991 [3d Dept 2006] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see also Bradford v State of New York, 17 AD3d 995, 997 [4th Dept 2005]; Richardson v Matarese, 206 AD2d 353, 353-354 [2d Dept 1994]; but see Futo v Brescia Bldg.

2026FN4 "To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case, [OGS] must demonstrate that [petitioner] cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the [agency's] explanations were pretextual" ( Keceli v Yonkers Racing Corp. , 155 AD3d 1014, 1016 [2d Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

2024To establish entitlement to summary judgment dismissing a claim of alleged discrimination under the NYCHRL, the defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim or, after offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action, that there is no material issue of fact as to whether the explanations were pretextual ( Ellison v. Chartis Claims, Inc ., 178 AD3d 665 , 667 [2d Dept 2019]; Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind , 3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004]; Keceli v. Yonkers Racing Corp ., 155 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2d Dept 2017]).

2025"To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case [under . . . (the) NYCHRL], a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant's explanations were pretextual" ( Reichman v City of New York , 179 AD3d 1115, 1119-1120 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Delrio v City of New York , 91 AD3d 900, 901 [2012]).

2024NO. 64 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/03/2024 defendant moving for summary judgment dismissing a retaliation claim brought under the NYSHRL or the NYCHRL “must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s explanations were pretextual” (Reichman, 179 AD3d at 1119-1120 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). “[O]pposing or complaining about unlawful discrimination” qualifies as a protected activity (Forrest,

2024To establish a prima facie claim for negligence under New York law, "a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom" (Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; accord JE. v Beth Israel Hosp., 295 AD2d 281,283 [1st Dept 2002]; Wayburn v Madison Land Ltd.

2024To establish a prima facie claim for negligence under New York law, “a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom” (Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; accord J.E. v Beth Israel Hosp., 295 AD2d 281, 283 [1st Dept 2002]; Wayburn v Madison Land Ltd.

2023"Unlike misdemeanor or felony complaints, which do not require such a showing in an accusatory instrument, the prima facie requirement is specific to informations" ( People v Jones , 9 NY3d at 261-262 ; cf. CPL 100.40[4]). "[S]o long as the factual allegations of an information give an accused notice sufficient to prepare a defense and are adequately detailed to prevent a defendant from being [*2]tried twice for the same offense, they should be given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" ( People v Kalin , 12 NY3d at 230 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Smalls

2020"An information that does not satisfy [the prima facie requirement] by failing to allege a complete element of the charged offense is jurisdictionally defective and may be challenged on appeal even though a defendant never raised the alleged insufficiency [previously]" ( People v Kalin , 12 NY3d at 229 [citations omitted]), with the exception of a claim of hearsay, which was implicitly waived under the circumstances presented herein when defendant proceeded to trial without objection ( see Casey , 95 NY2d at 366 ).

2023Here, contrary to the defendant's contention, the misdemeanor information satisfied the requirements of CPL 100.40(1) ( see People v Kalin , 12 NY3d at 230-31 ; People v Villegas , 54 Misc 3d 137[A] , 2017 NY Slip Op 50134[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists] People v Sylla , 7 Misc 3d 8, 10 [App Term, 2d Dept]; cf. People v Jones , 9 NY3d at 262-263 ).

2008Thus, “[t]he law does not require that the information contain the most precise words or phrases most clearly expressing the charge, only that the crime and the factual basis therefor be sufficiently alleged” (People v Sylla, 7 Misc 3d 8, 10 [App Term, 2d Dept 2005]).

2015In order to establish a prima facie violation of General Business Law § 349, the defendants had to “demonstrate that [Aries] is engag[ed] in consumer-oriented conduct which is deceptive or misleading in a material way, and that the [defendants were] injured because of it” (Ladino v Bank of Am., 52 AD3d 571, 574 [2008]; see Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 25 [1995]; Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 77 AD3d 344, 365 [2010], mod 18 NY3d 777 [2012]).

2010General Business Law § 349 A. Failure to State a Cause of Action “In order to establish a prima facie violation of General Business Law § 349, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant is engaging in consumer-oriented conduct which is deceptive or misleading in a material way, and that the plaintiff has been injured because of it” (Ladino v Bank of Am., 52 AD3d 571, 574 [2008]; see Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 25 [1995]).

2015“In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process” (Duren v Missouri, 439 US 357, 364 [1979]).

2012“In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a ‘distinctive’ group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process” (Duren v Missouri, 439 US 357, 364 [1979]; see Guzman, 60 NY2d at 410 ).

2018Defendants' submission of deposition transcripts, medical records, and expert affidavits based upon the same established a prima facie defense entitling them to summary judgment ( see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp. , 68 NY2d 320, 325 [1986]).

2013Ms. Porras died on June 27, 2009 and the autopsy report identified the cause of death as “acute pulmonary failure due to bilateral obstructive pulmonary thromboemboli originating from thrombosed right popliteal vein.” Defendants’ submissions of deposition transcripts, medical records, and expert affirmations based on the same, established a prima facie defense entitling them to summary judgment, if not rebutted (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

2009Flaintiff met his initial burden inasmuch as “[t]he collapse of a work site itself ‘constitute[s] a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1)’ ” (Bradford v State of New York, 17 AD3d 995 , 997 [2005], quoting Richardson v Matarese, 206 AD2d 353, 353 [1994]), and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the conduct of plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries (cf. Tronolone v Praxair, Inc., 22 AD3d 1031, 1033 [2005]; see generally Felker v Corning Inc., 90 NY2d 219, 224 [1997]).

2009The collapse of the work site itself, even if it is part of a permanent structure, will constitute a prima facie violation of the statute, especially if the structure being worked upon is acting as the “ ‘functional equivalent of a scaffold’ ” (Beard v State of New York, 25 AD3d 989, 991 [2006], quoting Craft v Clark Trading Corp., 257 AD2d 886, 888 [1999]; see Bradford v State of New York, 17 AD3d 995, 997 [2005]; but see Jones v 414 Equities LLC, 57 AD3d 65, 79 [2008]).

2016At trial, to establish a prima facie violation of Executive Law § 296 (1) (a),' a plaintiff must show that (1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he or she was qualified to hold the position; (3) he or she was terminated from employment or suffered another adverse employment action; and (4) the discharge or other adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004]; Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629 [1997]; Lester v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Histor

2012To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case, a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant’s explanations were pretextual (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295 [2004]; see also Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 631 [1997]; Williams v City of New York, 38 AD3d 238 [2007]; Thide v New York State Dept. of Transp., 27 AD3d 452, 454 [2006]; He

2025To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in an unlawful retaliation case under the Human Rights Law, "a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant's explanations were pretextual" ( Shapiro v State of New York , 217 AD3d at 702 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Bilitch v New York City Health & Hosps.

2024To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a retaliation case a defendant must "demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant's explanations were pretextual" (Shapiro v State of New York, 217 AD3d 700, 702 [2d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

2024Partnership, 282 AD2d 301,302 [1st Dept 2001]).

2024Partnership, 282 AD2d 301, 302 [1st Dept 2001]).

2024To establish a prima facie claim for negligence under New York law, "a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom" (Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; accord JE. v Beth Israel Hosp., 295 AD2d 281,283 [1st Dept 2002]; Wayburn v Madison Land Ltd.

2024To establish a prima facie claim for negligence under New York law, “a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom” (Solomon v City of New York, 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; accord J.E. v Beth Israel Hosp., 295 AD2d 281, 283 [1st Dept 2002]; Wayburn v Madison Land Ltd.

2016Defendant’s argument is, effectively, that those actions were warranted by plaintiff’s conduct while a captain, but this argument goes more properly to the second leg of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework (see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792 [1973]), namely rebuttal of a prima facie claim of employment discrimination by showing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action (see Bennett v Health Mgt.

2003Since plaintiffs failed to raise a ques tion of fact as to whether they were discharged under circumstances supporting an inference of age discrimination, Supreme Court properly dismissed their disparate treatment claims. 4 We are further persuaded that Supreme Court improperly shifted the burden of proof to defendant in assessing whether all plaintiffs’ failure to rehire claims should have been dismissed. 5 Pursuant to McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green ( 411 US 792, 802 [1973]), to establish a prima facie claim of discrimination for failure to rehire, plaintiffs must allege that each was a memb

1996Co., 81 NY2d 494 ; cf., Kelleher v Power Auth., 211 AD2d 918 ), we find that plaintiff established a prima facie violation of the statute and that such violation was the proximate cause of his injuries (see, Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 459 ).

1995The Court of Appeals has held: "Notwithstanding that section 240 (2) specifically requires guardrails only where the scaffold is more than 20 feet high, the general standard of section 240 (1), as correctly applied by the Appellate Division, requires that scaffolding be so constructed and erected as 'to give proper protection’ to the worker, without regard to height.” (Bland v Manocherian, 66 NY2d 452, 461 [emphasis added].) The IAS Court correctly found, therefore, that plaintiff established a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1).

2018"In order to establish a prima facie violation of General Business Law § 349, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a defendant is engaging in consumer-oriented conduct which is deceptive or misleading in a material way, and that the plaintiff has been injured because of it" ( Ladino v Bank of Am., 52 AD3d 571, 574 ).

2015In order to establish a prima facie violation of General Business Law § 349, the defendants had to “demonstrate that [Aries] is engag[ed] in consumer-oriented conduct which is deceptive or misleading in a material way, and that the [defendants were] injured because of it” (Ladino v Bank of Am., 52 AD3d 571, 574 [2008]; see Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 25 [1995]; Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc., 77 AD3d 344, 365 [2010], mod 18 NY3d 777 [2012]).