" '[T]o make out an unlawful retaliation claim under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must show [*4]that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity as that term is defined under the NYCHRL, (2) his or her employer was aware that he or she participated in such activity, (3) his or her employer engaged in conduct which was reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in that protected activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory conduct' " (Sanderson-Burgess v City of New York, 173 AD3d 1233, 1235-1236 [2019], quoting Brightman v Prison Health Serv., Inc., 108 AD3d 739, 740 [2013]; see Administrative Code § 8-107 [7]). "To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in a retaliation case [under . . . (the) NYCHRL], a defendant must demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie claim of retaliation or, having offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, that there exists no triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant's explanations were pretextual" (Reichman v City of New York, 179 AD3d 1115, 1119-1120 [2020] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Delrio v City of New York, 91 AD3d 900, 901 [2012]). "The plaintiff [in a NYCHRL retaliation action], if not a current employee, should be shown to occupy a subordinate position in an ongoing economic relationship that is threatened by the 'employer's' retaliation, and the nature of the retaliation itself should have a demonstrable nexus to the harm being alleged" (Schmitt v Artforum Intl. Mag., Inc., 178 AD3d 578, 584-585 [2019]).