Williams v New York City Hous. Auth. (2009 NY Slip Op 00440)
Williams v New York City Hous. Auth.
2009 NY Slip Op 00440 [61 AD3d 62]
January 27, 2009
Acosta, J.
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, May 20, 2009
[*1]
Gina Williams, Appellant,
v
New York City Housing Authority et al., Respondents.
First Department, January 27, 2009
Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 2007 NY Slip Op 34401(U), affirmed.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Gina Williams, appellant pro se.
Ricardo Elias Morales, New York City (Steven J. Rappaport and Donna M. Murphy of counsel), for respondents.
{**61 AD3d at 63} OPINION OF THE COURT
Acosta, J.
Introduction
This appeal presents us with the opportunity to construe for the first time the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 (Local Law No. 85 [2005] of City of NY [Restoration Act]).
Defendants' summary judgment motion—addressed to an amended complaint alleging a hostile work environment, disparate treatment on the basis of sex, and retaliation in violation of [*2]applicable provisions of the Executive Law and the New York City Administrative Code—was granted in its entirety. While we agree with the motion court that the claims arising under both{**61 AD3d at 64} the State and City Human Rights Laws must be dismissed, we take a different approach and consider the city claims under the commands of the Restoration Act, as a distinct analysis is required to fully appreciate and understand the distinctive and unique contours of the local law in this area.
Background