[this] statute, a complainant must show [1] that [it] engaged in protected activity, [2] that the
[opposing party] was aware of this activity, [3] that the [opposing party] took adverse action
against the complainant and [4] that a causal connection exists between the protected activity and
the adverse action" (Hollandale Apts.
& Health Club, LLC v Bonesteel, 173 AD3d 55, 68[*2][2019] [citation omitted]; see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 312-313
[2004]). The complainant bears the initial burden of establishing retaliation as set forth above
before the burden shifts to the opposing party to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason
for the adverse action (see Hollandale Apts. & Health Club, LLC v Bonesteel, 173
AD3d at 69).
As an initial matter, the ALJ employed an incorrect burden-shifting analysis under the first
prong of the above test. In order for CityVision to demonstrate that it engaged in protected
activity by filing a discrimination complaint where, as here, the complaint was ultimately
dismissed, CityVision was required to show that it held a reasonable belief that Pine Ridge was
engaged in discriminatory practices (see Matter of New York State Off. of Mental
Retardation & Dev. Disabilities [Staten Is. Dev. Ctr.] v New York State Div. of Human
Rights, 164 AD2d 208, 210 [1990]). The ALJ did not undertake any analysis as to whether
CityVision reasonably believed that Pine Ridge was engaging in a discriminatory practice during
the telephone call in question. Rather, the ALJ simply stated in conclusory fashion that
CityVision's discrimination complaint was made in good faith, that "[petitioners had] not shown
that [CityVision's] allegations were made in bad faith and, therefore, [CityVision] should