MARTINO v. ABC (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lisa S. Headley), entered on or about August 10, 2023, which, following an inquest, determined that plaintiff failed to establish defendants’ liability for hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (HRLs) and dismissed the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remanded for a new inquest on damages in accordance with this decision.

“[B]y defaulting, a defendant admits all traversable allegations contained in the complaint, and thus concedes liability, although not damages” (HF Mgt. Servs., LLC v. Dependable Care, LLC, 198 A.D.3d 457, 457, 152 N.Y.S.3d 574 [1st Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]).  “Some proof of liability” against defaulting defendants is “required to satisfy the court as to the prima facie validity of the uncontested cause of action, but the standard of proof is minimal, not stringent” (Petty v. Law Off. of Robert P. Santoriella, P.C., 200 A.D.3d 621, 621, 160 N.Y.S.3d 228 [1st Dept. 2021] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Assuming the court, in its prior order ruling on plaintiff's motion for a default judgment, properly ordered an inquest on liability as well as damages, plaintiff testified at inquest that her supervisor routinely asked her invasive questions about her love life, pressured her to work from his apartment and use his pool, showed her footage of other women being videotaped in his home, regularly touched her lower back and shoulders, and after she rebuffed his advances, deprived her of promised benefits and terminated her employment.  This testimony was sufficient to support a viable claim that plaintiff was “subjected to inferior terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of her gender” in violation of the State HRL (Crawford v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc., 216 A.D.3d 507, 508, 189 N.Y.S.3d 184 [1st Dept. 2023]) and was treated “less well than other employees” on the basis of gender in violation of the City HRL (O'Rourke v. National Foreign Trade Council, Inc., 176 A.D.3d 517, 517, 110 N.Y.S.3d 104 [1st Dept. 2019]).  The remarks and circumstances to which plaintiff was subjected “rise above the level of nonactionable petty slights or inconveniences” (id.).  Plaintiff's testimony also established a viable claim for retaliation under the HRLs (see Harrington v. City of New York, 157 A.D.3d 582, 585, 70 N.Y.S.3d 177 [1st Dept. 2018];  Ananiadis v. Mediterranean Gyros Prods., Inc., 151 A.D.3d 915, 920, 54 N.Y.S.3d 155 [2d Dept. 2017]).

Because plaintiff made a prima facie showing of liability at inquest, the court should not have dismissed the complaint (see Petty, 200 A.D.3d at 621, 160 N.Y.S.3d 228).

Furthermore, on damages, plaintiff's uncontroverted testimony that defendants’ actions caused her to experience emotional distress, sleepless nights, anxiety, relationship strain, and weight gain established that she was entitled to at least some compensatory damages, notwithstanding her failure to submit corroborating evidence of mental anguish (see e.g. Matter of City of New York v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 283 A.D.2d 215, 215, 728 N.Y.S.2d 367 [1st Dept. 2001]).

Accordingly, we remand for a new inquest on the issue of plaintiff's damages.  The inquest should address, among other things, plaintiff's requests for emotional distress and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees, which Supreme Court did not address at the inquest (see Administrative Code § 8–502[a], [g]).