WOLF v. IMUS (2019)

Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiff's age discrimination claims brought under the City and State Human Rights Laws, because the impact on plaintiff from the termination of his employment occurred in Florida, where he lived and worked (see e.g. Hoffman v. Parade Publs., 15 N.Y.3d 285, 290–292, 907 N.Y.S.2d 145, 933 N.E.2d 744 [2010];  Shah v. Wilco Sys., Inc., 27 A.D.3d 169, 175–176, 806 N.Y.S.2d 553 [1st Dept. 2005], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 7 N.Y.3d 859, 824 N.Y.S.2d 597, 857 N.E.2d 1129 [2006] ).  “Whether New York courts have subject matter jurisdiction over a nonresident plaintiff's claims under the HRLs turns primarily on her [or his] physical location at the time of the alleged discriminatory acts” (Benham v. eCommission Solutions, LLC, 118 A.D.3d 605, 606, 989 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1st Dept. 2014] ).

Plaintiff's claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, also arising from the termination of his employment, was not viable because the documentary evidence demonstrates that his employer did not breach his employment contract, but declined to exercise its contractual right to renew the contract for an additional year (see American Preferred Prescription v. Health Mgt., 252 A.D.2d 414, 417, 678 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 1998];  see also Willis Re Inc. v. Hudson, 29 A.D.3d 489, 490, 816 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept. 2006] ).