VICTOR v. Manhattan Place Condominium, Defendant–Appellant. (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shlomo S. Hagler, J.), entered on or about April 25, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from, denied counterclaim defendant Manhattan Place Condominium's (MPC) motion for summary judgment dismissing Tyler Erdman's first counterclaim for retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.

Erdman failed to raise issues of fact as to whether he had “a relationship characterized in some manner as one of employment, past or present,” with MPC, as is required for retaliation liability under the City HRL (Schmitt v. Artforum Intl. Mag., Inc., 178 A.D.3d 578, 584, 115 N.Y.S.3d 291 [1st Dept. 2019]).  Erdman argues for the first time on appeal that he can maintain this action against MPC because he formerly worked for MPC as an independent contractor.  We decline to reach that issue since Erdman did not raise it before the motion court and “it is not a purely legal argument apparent on the face of the record” (Louis v. City of New York, 223 A.D.3d 526, 527, 203 N.Y.S.3d 560 [1st Dept. 2023]).

Erdman's cross-appeal is dismissed as abandoned for failure to raise grounds for affirmative relief from the order in his brief (see Mangold v. Board of Mgrs. of Meadow Ct. Condominium, 236 A.D.3d 406, 407–408, 230 N.Y.S.3d 18 [1st Dept. 2025]).

Motion to withdraw cross-appeal, granted.

Cross–Motion to dismiss cross-appeal, denied.