The opinion
Rozwadowski v Authentic Brands Group LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 30149(U)
January 15, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 155162/2020
Judge: Shlomo S. Hagler
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
State and local government sources, including the New
York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. SHLOMO S. HAGLER PART 17
Justice
---------------------X INDEX NO. 155162/2020
ADAM ROZWADOWSKI,
MOTION DATE 06/23/2021
Plaintiff,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 004
- V -
AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC, THE MAVEN INC.,
JAMES HECKMAN, ROSS LEVINSOHN, EDWARD DECISION + ORDER ON
BUCCIO, JULIE IANNUZI, AMY LARKIN MOTION
Defendants.
-------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 34, 35, 36, 38, 40,
42,45
were read on this motion to DISMISS
In this retaliation action by plaintiff Adam Rozwadowski (plaintiff), defendants
Authentic Brands Group LLC (ABG), The Maven Inc. (Maven), James Heckman (Heckman),
Ross Levinsohn (Levinsohn), Edward Buccio (Buccio), Julie Iannuzzi (Iannuzzi), and Amy
Larkin (Larkin) (collectively, individual defendants), move, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), for
an order dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint, except the retaliation cause of action against
Maven under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL ).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following facts are taken from plaintiff's complaint and are assumed to be true for
the purposes of this motion.
The parties
Rozwadowski names as defendants ABG, the owner of Sports Illustrated (SI) (NYS Cts
Blee Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 22, amended complaint at ,i 2), and Maven, the operator of SI
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 1 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 1] 1 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
(id at ,r,r 2-3). Rozwadowski also names Levinsohn, the CEO of SI through August 2020 (id. at ,r
5) and Heckman, the CEO of Maven through August 2020, when Levinsohn took over (id. at ,r
4). Additionally, Rozwadowski names Buccio, a Maven technical director, Iannuzzi, Maven's
vice-president of video, and Larkin, Maven's director of human resources (id. at ,r,r 6-8).
ABG purchases SI
In May 2019, ABG purchased SI, a sports site network that creates programming and
reporting (id. at ,r 14). On June 18, 2019, ABG sold the operating rights to SI to Maven, a digital-
media publishing network (id. at ,r,r 2 & 14).
Plaintiffreports Buccio 's conduct toward female on-air host
On January 2, 2020, plaintiff was the lead-in-charge of SI' s video production at The
Street (TST) studio (id. at ,r,r 32 & 38), when Amy Campbell (Campbell), an on-air host at SI (id.
at ,r 38), told him that Buccio repeatedly ordered the hair and makeup unit (HMU) to fix her hair
over her several objections (id. at ,r,i 38 & 41 ). Plaintiff insists, upon information and belief, that,
customarily, on-air hosts decided when they needed help (id. at ,r 38). Together, plaintiff and
Campbell told Buccio that his focus on Campbell's appearance was offensive and asked him to
stop (id at ,i 43), but Buccio allegedly screamed "I am the director! I run the studio! And ifl
want hair and makeup to stand on set all day, she will stand there all day! She is paid to be here,
and I am the boss. If I say she has to be here she has to be here" (id. at ,r 45). Plaintiff claims that
as an independent contractor, he was nervous about and intimidated by Buccio's reaction (id at ,r
46). Plaintiff and Campbell subsequently reported the incident to the coordinating producer
nonparty David Seperson (id at ,r 47). Plaintiff alleges that on January 6, 2020, plaintiff
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 2of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 2] 2 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
additionally reported Buccio's conduct in writing to YOH 1 human resources (id at ,i 48) and
specifically expressed plaintiffs fear of retaliation (id).
On January 9, 2020, Buccio allegedly approached Campbell and ran his hand through her
hair without her permission (id. at ,i 50). When Campbell told plaintiff about this incident,
plaintiff claims he felt intimidated because he feared defendants' retaliation (id at ,i 55).
Nevertheless, plaintiff reported the incident to YOH human resources once more but was
allegedly admonished and told Campbell should report it to her own employer (id at ,i,r 56-57).
The amended complaint alleges that on January 14, 2020, Larkin approached plaintiff,
asked him to recount the incident, and repeatedly asked why Campbell did not report it to human
resources (id at ,i 61). According to the amended complaint, Larkin's manner was "belittling"
and "sarcastic," and she wanted plaintiff to agree that "the conduct must not have been a big
deal" since Campbell did not report it to human resources (id. at ,i,r 59 & 61 ). Plaintiff alleges
that, upon information and belief, Larkin wanted to make plaintiff concerned about his job and
that Larkin "threateningly asked [him] when [his] contract ended" because "he [plaintiff] refused
to back off' his allegations that Buccio sexually harassed Campbell (id. at ,r,r 59 & 62).
Communications about plaintiff's and Campbell's reports
Plaintiff claims that Campbell then reported the alleged discrimination to Larkin (id. at ,i
64). The amended complaint alleges upon information and belief that as part of the human
resources' investigation into the report, Larkin informed Iannuzzi, Heckman, and Levinsohn
about plaintiff's reports (id. at ,r 68). The amended complaint also alleges upon information and
belief that Iannuzzi "lobbied to ignore" plaintiff's and Campbell's reports due to Iannuzzi's
friendship with Buccio (id. at ,r 69).
1 YOH Services LLC (YOH), a staffing agency, provided plaintiff's employment benefits. Plaintiff named
YOH in the original complaint but subsequently discontinued this action against YOH.
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 3 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 3] 3 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
In late January 2020, Seperson allegedly informed plaintiff he was on a phone call with
human resources and "all the higher ups" about the reports discussing how the reports were
"going to be taken care of' (id. at, 70). Around this time, Si's senior producer of video strategy,
nonparty Tom Mantzouranis (Mantzouranis), also told plaintiff that he was speaking with human
resources and "the higher ups" regarding next steps (id at 171). Plaintiff understood the "higher
ups" to include Heckman, Levinsohn, Iannuzzi, and Larkin (id at , 72). Plaintiff claims that
Iannuzzi refused to talk to plaintiff and to acknowledge him because of his reports (id at 1 80).
Assurances of employment and termination
Throughout this time, plaintiff allegedly received several assurances of employment (id
at 1149 & 63). According to plaintiff, in a January 23, 2020 meeting with the contractors,
Levinsohn represented that his job as CEO was, among other things, to "hire and fire well, and
solve problems" and that he would be responsible for hiring for available jobs (id.).
On February 24, 2020, plaintiff learned that the entire SI NOW team except plaintiff and
Campbell received job offers (id. at ,i 82). On February 25, 2020, SI and Maven formally
terminated plaintiff (id. at 183). Plaintiff alleges, upon information and belief, that Iannuzzi,
Heckman, Levinsohn, and Larkin, while fully aware of plaintiffs reports of harassment and
potential retaliation, decided to terminate plaintiff's employment (id. at 184).
Plaintiff's causes ofaction
On July 21, 2021, plaintiff filed an amended complaint interposing two causes of action
against defendants: the first cause of action for retaliation in violation of the NYSHRL and the
second cause of action for retaliation in violation of the NYCHRL (id at 1189-94).
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 4 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 4] 4 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
DISCUSSION
Motion to Dismiss Standard
CPLR 3211 (a) (7)
On a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss, the court must "accept the facts as alleged in
the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and
determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Leon v
Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; see Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 275 [1977]).
However, "allegations consisting of bare legal conclusions as well as factual claims flatly
contradicted by documentary evidence are not entitled to any such consideration" (David v Hack,
97 AD3d 437,438 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
Additionally, "employment discrimination cases are ... generally reviewed under notice
pleading standards" (Vig v New York Hairspray Co., LP., 67 AD3d 140, 145 [1st Dept 2009]).
Under the liberal notice pleading standard, the plaintiff alleging employment discrimination is
not required to plead specific facts to establish a prima facie case of discrimination (id). Instead,
the plaintiff only needs to give '"fair notice' of the nature of the claim and its grounds" (id.
[citation omitted]; see Petit v Department of Educ. of the City ofNY, 177 AD3d 402, 403 [1st
Dept 2019] ("Fair notice is all that is required to survive at the pleading stage"]).
The NYCHRL Claims & Failure to Satisfy Administrative Prerequisites
Contrary to defendants' contention, Administrative Code§ 8-502 (c) is not a precondition
to suit. Administrative Code§ 8-502 (c) states in relevant part that "[w]ithin 10 days after having
commenced a civil action pursuant to subdivision a of this section, the plaintiff shall serve a copy
of the complaint upon ... authorized representatives [of the City Commission on Human Rights
(NYCCHR) and Corporation Counsel]." In Bernstein v 1995 Assoc., 217 AD2d 512 (1st Dept
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 5 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 5] 5 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
1995), the Appellate Division, First Department held that the language of Administrative Code §
8-502 (c) "was designed not to create a condition precedent, but to serve as a device by which
the City Commission on Human Rights and the New York City Corporation Counsel would be
apprised of any actions commenced under [T]itle 8" (Bernstein, 217 AD2d at 516; see also
Teller v America W. Airlines, Inc., 240 AD2d 727, 728 [2d Dept 1997]).
Here, plaintiff was not required to serve copies of the amended complaint on NYCCHR
to commence or maintain the action. For the foregoing reasons, noncompliance with the service
requirement of Administrative Code§ 8-502 (c) does not mandate dismissal of this case.
ABG 's employment relationship with and liability to plaintiff
Defendants argue that the amended complaint must be dismissed against ABG because
the complaint is entirely devoid of allegations that ABG was plaintiffs employer for the
purposes of the NYSHRL or the NYCHRL under any theory of employment, including as joint
employer or single employer with Maven or YOH. In opposition, plaintiff argues that the
amended complaint alleges that ABG was Maven's corporate owner and, as such, plaintiff
should be permitted to conduct discovery to establish whether indicia of an employment
relationship were present.
To maintain a cause of action for employment discrimination under the NYSHRL and
NYCHRL, "the plaintiff must allege the existence of an employment relationship" (Cannizzaro v
City of New York, 82 Misc 3d 563,573 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023]; see Executive Law§ 296 [1]
[a]; see Administrative Code§ 8-107 [1] [a] [2-3]). To determine whether a non-employer is a
joint employer, the Appellate Division, First Department, has adopted the immediate control test
(Brankov v Hazzard, 142 AD3d 445,446 [1st Dept 2016]). Under the immediate control test, the
court may find a joint employer relationship where
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page6of17
Motion No. 004
[* 6] 6 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
"the defendant had immediate control over the other company's employees, and
particularly the defendant's control over the employee in setting the terms and conditions
of the employee's work. Relevant factors in this exercise include commonality of hiring,
firing, discipline, pay, insurance, records, and supervision" (id. [internal citations and
quotation marks omitted]).
The most significant factor when applying the immediate control test is, "the extent of the
employer's right to control the means and manner of the worker's performance" (id.). If the
plaintiff can establish the requisite level of control, the remainder of the factors "are then of
marginal importance" (id.).
The single employer doctrine imposes liability for violations of the NYSHRL and
NYCHRL on entities that are part of a single enterprise (Moraetis v Evans, 150 AD3d 403,404
[1st Dept 2017]). The single employer doctrine consists of "four criteria to determine whether
two or more companies are sufficiently interrelated to constitute a single entity: (1) interrelation
of operations; (2) centralized control of labor relations; (3) common management; and (4)
common ownership or financial control of the entities in question" (Lockwood v CBS Corp., 219
AD3d 1326, 1328 (2d Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Batilo v
Mary Manning Walsh Nursing Home Co., Inc., 140 AD3d 637,638 [1st Dept 2016]). The most
critical factor in this inquiry is whether there was centralized control of labor (Lockwood, 219
AD3d at 1328). Centralized control of labor may be found upon an examination of which "entity
made the final decision regarding employment matters related to the person claiming
discrimination" (id. [citations omitted]). This "requires some showing of a central human
resources department" (Batilo, 140 AD3d at 638).
Despite plaintiff's contentions, the amended complaint fails to plead that ABG was the
corporate owner of Maven. The amended complaint only alleges that ABG "is the owner of
Sports Illustrated, and on June 18, 2019, sold to Defendant Maven Media Brand the operating
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 7 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 7] 7 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
rights to manage Sports Illustrated" (NYSCEF Doc No. 22, amended complaint at ,r 2). There is
no allegation in the amended complaint identifying ABG as Maven's corporate owner.
The amended complaint is also entirely silent regarding ABG' s involvement in operating
SI or any authority it may have retained over SI after it transferred the operating rights. There are
no allegations that anyone employed by Maven or SI took direction from ABG or that ABG paid
their salaries, provided benefits, maintained personnel records, or performed any other function.
There is nothing in the amended complaint that would satisfy the elements of the immediate
control test or point to a centralized control oflabor (see Batilo, 140 AD3d 637 at 637 [First
Department reversing the trial court's denial of defendant Roman Catholic Archdiocese's motion
to dismiss, where plaintiffs factual allegations failed to state any basis for a finding of a joint
employment relationship with plaintiffs direct employers]; Lockwood, 219 AD3d at 1328
[Second Department dismissing complaint against defendant CBS Corporation, where plaintiff
failed to sufficiently plead or evince facts that would support a finding of a single employer
relationship]).
To the extent that plaintiff argues discovery will yield proof that ABG was
a joint or single employer with Maven, the Appellate Division, First Department has held that
"[t]he mere hope that discovery might provide some factual support for a cause of action is
insufficient to avoid dismissal of a patently defective cause of action" (Mandarin Trading Ltd. v
Wildenstein, 65 AD3d 448,451 [1st Dept 2009], affd 16 NY3d 173 (2011]) [citation omitted];
see Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d 137, 144 [2017]). The excerpts from
newspaper articles on which plaintiff relies in his opposition are insufficient to remedy the
defects in the amended complaint. Even if this Court were to consider them, plaintiff provides
such articles to buttress plaintiffs unsuccessful claim that discovery is necessary to obtain
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 8 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 8] 8 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
factual support for his claims. Plaintiff cannot avoid dismissal of his claims against ABG, where
the amended complaint is entirely devoid of allegations that could support a finding that ABG is
an employer under any theory within the meaning of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. For the
foregoing reasons, the amended complaint is dismissed against ABG in its entirety.
Retaliation Claims Against the Individual Defendants
i. Retaliation under NYCHRL
Administrative Code § 8-107 [7] makes it "an unlawful discriminatory practice for any
person engaged in any activity to which this chapter applies to retaliate or discriminate in any
manner against any person because such person has . . . opposed any practice forbidden under
this chapter ..." (see Nezaj v PS450 Bar and Rest., 719 F Supp 3d 318,330 [SD NY 2024]).
Under the NYCHRL, "[a]n employer shall be liable for an unlawful discriminatory practice
based upon the conduct of an employee or agent which is in violation of any provision of this
section other than subdivisions l and 2 of this section" (Administrative Code§ 8-107 [13] [a]).
To establish a retaliation claim under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff must demonstrate that
"(l) [the plaintiff] participated in a protected activity known to defendants; (2) defendants took
an employment action that disadvantaged [the plaintiff]; and (3) a causal connection exists
between the protected activity and the adverse employment action" (Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99
AD3d 43, 51-52). In Fletcher, the Court held that Administrative Code§ 8-107 [7] should be
construed "like other provisions of the City's Human Rights Law, broadly in favor of
discrimination plaintiffs, to the extent that such a construction is reasonably possible" (Fletcher,
id. at 51).
Under the NYCHRL, a plaintiff is not required to allege a materially adverse change in
the terms and conditions of employment, but "that the retaliatory or discriminatory act ...
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 9 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 9] 9 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
complained of (was] reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity"
(Administrative Code§ 8-107 [7]). It is well-settled that "the language of the City HRL does not
permit any type of challenged conduct to be categorically rejected as nonactionable" (Williams v
New York City Hous. Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 71 (1st Dept 2009], Iv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]).
In the case cited by defendants, Doe v Bloomberg L.P., 36 NY3d 450,459 (2021), the
Court of Appeals held that
"where a plaintiffs employer is a business entity, the shareholders, agents, limited
partners, and employees of that entity are not employers within the meaning of the City
HRL. Rather, those individuals may incur liability only for their own discriminatory
conduct, for aiding and abetting such conduct by others, or for retaliation against
protected conduct" (id. at 459 [emphasis supplied], citing Administrative Code§ 8-107
[1], [6], [7]; see also Executive Law§ 292 [5]).
The Court found that defendant CEO Bloomberg was not liable as an employer under the
NYCHRL, where the plaintiff had not alleged that Bloomberg personally participated in the
alleged discriminatory conduct (Doe, 36 NY3d at 453,463). The NYCHRL "is clear as to when
an employer is liable: for the employer's own offending conduct and vicariously for some
actions of others" (id. at 455).
ii. Retaliation under NYSHRL
Under the NYSHRL, "[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person
engaged in any activity to which this section applies to retaliate or discriminate against any
person because he or she has opposed any practices forbidden under this article" (Executive Law
§ 296 [7]). To establish a claim of unlawful retaliation under the NYSHRL, the complaint must
allege that (1) plaintiff has engaged in protected activity, (2) defendants were aware that plaintiff
participated in such activity, (3) plaintiff experienced an adverse employment action because of
that activity, and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 10 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 10] 10 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
action (Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99 AD3d at 51, citing Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3
NY3d 245, 312-313 [2004]).
It is well settled that "[a]n employee engages in a 'protected activity' by 'opposing or
complaining about unlawful discrimination"' (Black v ESPN, Inc., 70 Misc 3d 1217[A], 2021
NY Slip Op 50118[U], *17 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021], citing Forrest, 3 NY3d 295 at 313; see
Sorrentino v Bohbot Entertainment and Media, 265 AD2d 245,245 [1st Dept 1999] [Plaintiffs
actions of encouraging the co-employee to bring her sexual harassment claim to the company,
and his subsequent statements relaying what he knew of the claims, constituted "opposition" to
practices forbidden by both the State and City Human Rights Laws, and therefore were actions
protected against retaliatory employment practices]).
Regarding the knowledge element of a retaliation claim, "nothing more is necessary than
general corporate knowledge that the plaintiff has engaged in a protected activity" (Seemungal v
New York State Dept. of Fin. Servs., 222 AD3d 467,468 [1st Dept 2023] [internal quotation
marks and citation omitted]).
To be adverse, it has traditionally been required that an employment action constitute "a
materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment ... , [which is] more
disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities" (Forrest, 3 NY3d at
306). Examples of adverse employment actions include "termination of employment, a demotion
evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits,
[or] significantly diminished material responsibilities" (id. [citation omitted]).
Further, it has been held that "[a] causal connection between a protected activity and a
negative employment outcome may be reasonably inferred from the passing of a brief period of
time between the two" (Gershenson v Local 52, 2022 NY Slip Op 32546[U], *7 [Sup Ct, NY
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 11 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 11] 11 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
County 2022]; see Ramos v Metro-North Commuter R.R., 194 AD3d 433,434 [1st Dept 2021]
["The temporal proximity between plaintiffs EEOC complaint and the incident leading up to her
termination, and her termination raise an issue of fact as to a causal connection, as these events
occurred within weeks of each other"] [citation omitted]; Bateman v Montefiore Med.
Ctr., 183 AD3d 489, 490-491 [1st Dept 2020]).
The NYSHRL was amended in August 2019 to "require an independent liberal analysis
to accomplish remedial purposes, as well as narrow construction of exceptions and exemptions"
(Golston-Green v City ofNew York, 184 AD3d 24, 35 n 1 [2d Dept 2020]; Brown v New York
City Dept. of Educ., 2023 NY Slip Op 30106[U], * 11 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023]). While the
decisional authority applying the law after the 2019 amendments is limited, courts presented with
this issue have interpreted the amendment as instructing the "courts to apply a liberal
construction of the statute so thus the approach of the NYCHRL should be applied in reviewing
retaliation claims under the NYSHRL" (Rivas v Intl Academy of Hope, 83 Misc 3d 1289[A],
2024 NY Slip Op 51253[U], *24 [Sup Ct, NY County 2024]; Hunoldv City ofNew York, 83
Misc 3d 1288[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 51241[U], *5 n 4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2024]; Cannizzaro v
City ofNew York, 82 Misc 3d 563,577 [Sup Ct, NY County 2023]; see Executive Law§ 300
["The provisions of this article shall be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the
remedial purposes thereof']).
iii. Analysis
Contrary to defendants' claims, plaintiffs amended complaint contains factual
allegations sufficient to support his claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Plaintiff alleges
that he made several reports regarding Buccio's conduct toward Campbell (NYSCEF Doc. No
22, amended complaint at ,i,i 47-48, 56, 61 & 78) (see Sorrentino, 265 AD2d at 245). According
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 12 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 12] 12 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
to the amended complaint, upon information and belief, Larkin informed Iannuzzi, Heckman,
and Levinsohn about the reports as part of the human resources investigation (id. at ,i 68).
Plaintiff also alleges that in late January 2020, Seperson and Mantzouranis told plaintiff about
the conversations with human resources and the higher-ups concerning the reports (id. at ,i,i 70-
72). Plaintiff alleges that he understood the "higher-ups" to include Iannuzzi, Heckman,
Levinsohn, and Larkin (id. at ,i 72).
Defendants argue the allegations that the individual defendants knew about plaintiffs
reports are impermissibly made upon information and belief. However, "dismissal is not required
at the pleading stage where allegations made 'upon information and belief can be ascertained
through discovery" (Gibson v 526 W 158th St. Haus. Dev. Fund Corp., 221 AD3d 455, 455-456
[1st Dept 2023], citing Harris v Structuretech NY, inc., 191 AD3d 470,471 [1st Dept 2021]).
Plaintiffs allegations that Larkin informed the individual defendants about the reports and that
they participated in conversations discussing the handling of plaintiffs discrimination
complaints are factual allegations that can be determined through discovery.
Additionally, since plaintiff was not privy to the alleged communications between
Seperson, Mantzouranis, human resources, and the "higher-ups," plaintiff is "not necessarily
expected, before disclosure, to make more specific allegations regarding defendants' knowledge"
(Artis v Random House, Inc., 34 Misc 3d 858, 865 [Sup Ct, NY County 2011]; see Krause v
Lancer & Loader Group, LLC, 40 Misc 3d 385, 395 [Sup Ct, NY County 2013]). Since "[t]he
function of a liberal notice pleading standard is precisely to permit an opportunity for such
disclosure" (Artis, 34 Misc 3d at 866, citing Mohammad v Board of Mgrs. of 50 E. 72nd St.
Condominium, 262 AD2d 76 [1st Dept 1999]), plaintiffs amended complaint has adequately
pled that he engaged in protected activity and that defendants had knowledge of it.
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 13 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 13] 13 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
Since plaintiff and Campbell reported the alleged discrimination and harassment and
were the only members of their team who were terminated (NYSCEF Doc. No 22, amended
complaint at 1 82), plaintiff sufficiently pled an adverse employment action and that defendants
took an employment action that disadvantaged him.
Finally, plaintiff adequately alleged a causal connection between his reports and
termination because less than two months passed between the reports of discrimination, the
conversations with the "higher-ups" and plaintiff's termination (NYSCEF Doc No. 22, amended
complaint at 1147-48, 56, 61, 70-72, 78, & 82-84).
Since defendants have not moved to dismiss plaintiffs first cause of action for retaliation
against defendant Maven, this Court need not test the sufficiency of plaintiffs NYSHRL
retaliation claims against Maven. Defendants however move to dismiss plaintiffs NYCHRL
claim as against Maven. Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for retaliation against
Maven pursuant to the NYCHRL because, under the statute, Maven is subject to liability for the
unlawful retaliatory conduct of an employee (see, e.g., Sand!ford v City ofN. Y. Dept. of Educ.,
22 NY3d 914,915 [2013]; Boliakv Reilly, 161 AD3d 625,626 [1st Dept 2018]).
Here, plaintiff has adequately pled a retaliation cause of action against the individual
defendants under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, other than Buccio. The amended complaint
claims that Larkin approached plaintiff about Campbell's complaints (id. at 161). Larkin
allegedly threateningly questioned plaintiff about his contract ending (id. at ii 62) and took part in
the conversations regarding what to do about plaintiff's reports (id. at 1ii 70-72), shortly after
which Maven terminated him (id. at 1182-83). Plaintiff alleges that Iannuzzi was involved in
every single decision at the studio (id. at ii 20), exercised significant control over his work (id. at
,r 26), lobbied to ignore plaintiffs complaints (id. at ii 69), refused to talk to plaintiff or
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 14 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 14] 14 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
acknowledge plaintiff after plaintiff made the reports (id. at, 80), and also allegedly participated
in the conversations with the "higher-ups" (id. at, 72). The amended complaint alleges that
Heckman and Levinsohn had hiring and firing authority (id. at,, 17-18 & 63) and previously
laid off staff and hired new managers (id. at , 17). The amended complaint also pleads that
Heckman and Levinsohn, who allegedly knew about plaintiff's protected activity, participated in
the decision-making process regarding plaintiffs reports shortly before plaintiff was terminated
(id. at~ 68, 70-72). Contrary to defendants' assertions, Heckman and Levinsohn are not exempt
from potential liability for retaliatory conduct under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL simply
because of their status as senior executives. Doe v Bloomberg does not bar an action against an
officer, where the officer engaged in retaliatory conduct (Doe, 36 NY3d at 459).
Maven terminated plaintiff shortly after the conversations about how to handle plaintiffs
reports, which allegedly included Larkin, Iannuzzi, Heckman, and Levinsohn. Thus, the
amended complaint adequately pleads that these individual defendants, all of whom allegedly
knew about Campbell's protected activity, participated in the decision-making process regarding
plaintiffs reports shortly before he was terminated. For the forgoing reasons, plaintiff
sufficiently pled, at this stage of litigation, that Larkin, Iannuzzi, Levinsohn, Heckman, and
Maven, as their employer, engaged in unlawful retaliatory conduct.
Plaintiff, however, fails to sufficiently plead retaliatory conduct by Buccio under either
the NYSHRL or NYCHRL. While plaintiff alleges several times that he feared retaliation
(NYSCEF Doc No. 22, amended complaint at 1, 48, 55, 62, & 64), the complaint fails to
describe a single incident in which Buccio's conduct toward him was so adverse as to deter a
person from reporting discriminatory behavior. Plaintiff also fails to allege that Buccio was
involved in the conversations about the reports or had any hiring or firing authority that could
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 15 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 15] 15 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
have contributed to plaintiffs termination. Therefore, plaintiffs amended complaint is dismissed
against Buccio in its entirety.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the motion of defendants Authentic Brands Group LLC and Edward
Buccio to dismiss the complaint herein is granted and the complaint is dismissed in its entirety as
against said defendants, with costs and disbursements to said defendants as taxed by the Clerk of
the Court, and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly in favor of said defendants; and
it is further
ORDERED that counsel for the moving party shall serve a copy of this order with notice
of entry upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office, who are directed
to mark the court's records to reflect the change in the caption herein; and it is further
ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General
Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on
Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the "E-
Filing" page on the court's website); and it is further
ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining defendants;
and it is further
ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the dismissals and that all future papers
filed with the court bear the amended caption; and it is further
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 16 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 16] 16 of 17
INDEX NO. 155162/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 47 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/15/2025
ORDERED that remaining defendants are directed to serve an answer to the complaint
within 20 days after service of a copy of this order with notice of entry.
~
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED □ DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
155162/2020 ROZWADOWSKI, ADAM vs. AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP LLC Page 17 of 17
Motion No. 004
[* 17] 17 of 17