LANDRY v. ENGINEERING CONSULTING (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to recover damages for retaliation in violation of Labor Law §§ 215 and 740, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (William J. Giacomo, J.), dated January 10, 2025.  The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied the plaintiff's cross-motions for summary judgment on the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In 2020, the defendant K&A Engineering Consulting, P.C. (hereinafter K&A), hired the plaintiff as a manager of finance.  In January 2021, the plaintiff was promoted to the position of director of finance.  In May 2022, the plaintiff commenced this action alleging that K&A and the defendant Purna Kharel violated Labor Law §§ 215 and 740 by terminating the plaintiff's employment in retaliation for his complaining that the defendants required him to submit falsified financial data to a bank.  Thereafter, the defendants moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff made two cross-motions for summary judgment on the complaint.  In an order dated January 10, 2025, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted that branch of the defendants' motion and denied the plaintiff's cross-motions.  The plaintiff appeals.

Labor Law § 215 provides that no employer shall “discharge, threaten, penalize, or in any other manner discriminate against any employee” because that employee “made a complaint to his or her employer ․ that the employer has engaged in conduct that the employee, reasonably and in good faith, believes violates any provision of [the Labor Law] or any order issued by” the Commissioner of Labor (id. § 215[1][a][i];  see Reyes v. Seaqua Delicatessen, Inc., 234 AD3d 88, 93).

Labor Law § 740 prohibits an employer from taking any retaliatory action against an employee because that employee “discloses, or threatens to disclose ․ an activity, policy or practice of the employer that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of law, rule or regulation or that the employee reasonably believes poses a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety” (id. § 740[2][a] ).  Labor Law § 740(4)(c) provides, however, that “[i]t shall be a defense to any action brought pursuant to this section that the retaliatory action was predicated upon grounds other than the employee's exercise of any rights protected by this section” (see Lukose v Long Is. Med. Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., 120 AD3d 1312, 1313).

Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the termination of the plaintiff's employment was predicated upon his failure to properly perform his duties and that they did not terminate the plaintiff's employment because he complained that they engaged in conduct that he reasonably believed violated any provision of the Labor Law or any order issued by the Commissioner of Labor or because he exercised any rights under Labor Law § 740 (see Vola v. Tully Constr.  Co., Inc., 246 AD3d 679, 679–680;  Lukose v Long Is. Med. Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., 120 AD3d at 1313).  In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Vola v. Tully Constr.  Co., Inc., 246 AD3d at 679–680;  Lukose v Long Is. Med. Diagnostic Imaging, P.C., 120 AD3d at 1313).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the same reasons, on his cross-motions for summary judgment on the complaint, the plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden of establishing his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the complaint.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied his cross-motions.

BARROS, J.P., WARHIT, TAYLOR and QUIRK, JJ., concur.