ESPOSITO v. ALTRIA GROUP INC (2009)

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered July 28, 2008, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.   Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered July 16, 2008, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the aforesaid judgment.

 Although plaintiff claimed that Altria Group's human resources department controlled labor relations at all of the Altria companies, including Philip Morris Capital Corporation, which employed plaintiff, she failed to demonstrate that Altria exercised control over or made any employment decisions related to her, and therefore Altria may not be held liable for Philip Morris's alleged unlawful conduct towards her (see Cook v. Arrowsmith Shelburne, Inc., 69 F.3d 1235, 1240-1241 [2d Cir.1995] ).

 Plaintiff's claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) were correctly dismissed.   Even if she could establish that she is disabled within the broader meaning of these laws (see Phillips v. City of New York, 66 A.D.3d 170, 884 N.Y.S.2d 369, 373 [2009];  Executive Law § 292[21];  Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8-102[16];  see also Loeffler v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 582 F.3d 268, 278 [2d Cir.2009] ), plaintiff, a New York resident, has no right to bring a proceeding under these statutes against a foreign corporation for discrimination that allegedly occurred outside New York (see Sorrentino v. Citicorp, 302 A.D.2d 240, 755 N.Y.S.2d 78 [2003];  Hoffman v. Parade Publs., 65 A.D.3d 48, 878 N.Y.S.2d 320 [2009] ).

 Plaintiff's claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was correctly dismissed because plaintiff failed to establish that she was denied reasonable accommodations.   Her employer allowed her to leave work early for therapy appointments and granted her two short-term disability leaves.   It was not required to grant her an indefinite leave of absence (see Mitchell v. Washingtonville Cent. School Dist., 190 F.3d 1, 9 [2d Cir.1999] ) or a transfer to a position in another department that was occupied by another employee (see Micari v. TWA, Inc., 1999 U.S. App LEXIS 32742, *3-4, 1999 WL 1254518, *1 [2d Cir.1999] ).

Under the ADA, the facts alleged by plaintiff do not give rise to a hostile work environment claim (see Kodengada v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., 88 F.Supp.2d 236, 243 [S.D.N.Y. 2000], affd. 242 F.3d 366 [2d Cir. 2007] ) or a retaliation claim (see O'Dell v. Trans World Entertainment Corp., 153 F.Supp.2d 378, 392-394 [S.D.N.Y. 2001], affd. 40 Fed.Appx. 628 [2d Cir. 2002] ).