The opinion
Yuliano v Central Park W. Orthodontics P.C.
2025 NY Slip Op 31427(U)
April 22, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: Index No. 161370/2019
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. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. SHLOMO S. HAGLER PART 17
Justice
-------------------X INDEX NO. 161370/2019
MARIE YULIANO,
MOTION DATE 05/19/2023
Plaintiff,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 001
-v-
CENTRAL PARK WEST ORTHODONTICS P.C.,
PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY AND WEST SIDE
ORTHODONTICS, LLC d/b/a CENTRAL PARK WEST DECISION + ORDER ON
PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, ROBERT P. PERACCHIA, and MOTION
MARY EVE MAESTRE,
Defendants.
-------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27,28,29,30, 31, 32,33, 34,35,36,37, 38, 39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49, 50, 51, 52,53, 54,
55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79
were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY
Plaintiff Marie Yuliano brings this action against defendants Central Park West
Orthodontics P.C. (CPW Orthodontics), Pediatric Dentistry and West Side Orthodontics, LLC
d/b/a Central Park West Pediatric Dentistry (CPW Pediatric) (together, the Practices), Robert P.
Peracchia (Peracchia), and Mary Eve Maestre (Maestre) (together, the Individual Defendants)
(together with the Practices, defendants) alleging that they engaged in age- and gender-based
employment discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law (the City HRL)
(Administrative Code of the City of NY § 8-101 et seq.). On this motion, defendants move,
pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. For the reasons set
forth below, the motion is denied.
Factual Background
Peracchia co-owns CPW Pediatric, a dental practice that focuses exclusively on children
(NY St Cts Elec Filing [NYSCEF] Doc No. 50, plaintifrs response to statement of material facts,
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 1 of 15
Motion No. 001
1 of 15
[* 1]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
,r 5; NYSCEF Doc No. 7, answer ,i 14). Maestre co-owns CPW Pediatric and owns CPW
Orthodontics; children comprise 95% of CPW Orthodontics' patients (NYSCEF Doc No. 30,
Maestre aff, ,r 1; NYSCEF Doc No. 50, ,i 5). The Individual Defendants, who are married, jointly
manage the Practices (NYSCEF Doc No. 7, ,r 16). The Practices operate out of separate, adjoining
suites at 327 Central Park West, New York, New York (id, ,r,i 6-7; NYSCEF Doc No. 50, ,r 9).
Plaintiff, a female who was born in 1960, worked for defendants as an office/business
manager beginning in January 2016, when she was 55 years of age, until she was terminated on
November 22, 2017 (NYSCEF Doc No. 7, ,r 2; NYSCEF Doc No. 50, ,r,i 20 and 75, NYSCEF Doc
No. 52, Leon affirmation, exhibit 1, plaintiff aff, ,r 5). Plaintiffs duties included paying bills from
an account for CPW Pediatric, an account for CPW Orthodontics, and a third account, which was
used for building expenses (NYSCEF Doc No. 25, DiLorenzo affirmation, exhibit A, plaintiff tr
at 18 and 20). Plaintiff testified that she placed the checks and the corresponding bills or invoices
on the Individual Defendants' desks for their signature (id. at 18).
Plaintiff testified in or about March 2017, defendants told her "about the BMW girl who
was really young and really pretty, low-cut shirts, touchy-feely with all the male customers, high
heels, fancy .... That's what they wanted me to do every day on the orthodontic side, be just like
her" (id at 33-34). Plaintiff added that Peracchia "wanted me behaving just like she was, looking
like she was, all pretty and dolled up, fancy-schmancy clothes, low-cut shirts, and just be wooing
these male customers into a whole different stratosphere of customer service" (id. at 34). Plaintiff
was also tasked with implementing plans drafted by a consultant retained by defendants (id. at 53).
This included walking the orthodontic bay each afternoon to interact with parents and help staff
move cases (id. at 37, 43, 53-55 and 58-59). Plaintiff testified that she attempted to comply with
these instructions and purchased over $1,000 in new clothing (id. at 40-41). The Individual
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 2 of 15
Motion No. 001
2 of 15
[* 2]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
Defendants repeated their instructions to plaintiff"at least once a week, sometimes twice a week"
(id. at 34), usually in a standing meeting with Peracchia, though Maestre was also present on
occasion (id. at 38-39 and 49). In those meetings, Peracchia "would bring up I wasn't in the bay
enough. I wasn't and [sic] tantalizing enough. I wasn't wow enough" (id. at 48). Peracchia made
it "clear this is what he wanted me to do .... This was his priority" (id.). Plaintiff was unaware of
other staff having been instructed to act or dress in a similar manner, and staff in both Practices
were aware of the change (id. at 37). Plaintiff never protested to anyone and believed that
complaining to a co-worker was "unprofessional" (id. at 36-37 and 51). That said, "[t]here was
no one to report [the alleged harassment] to. The only people I reported to were [the Individual
Defendants]" (id. at 43). Plaintiff also testified that defendants were aware she was unhappy with
what she had been instructed to do (id.).
In November 2017, the Individual Defendants met with plaintiff, accused her of cashing a
$3,000 personal check, and terminated her employment (id. at 43, 45, 62, and 65). Plaintiff
testified that they showed her "a check they both knew I could never have anything to do with"
because they kept their personal checks in their home (id. at 45, 62 and 66). Plaintiff testified that
she had never visited their residence and had never handled or had access to their personal checks
(id. at 44 and 46). The check did not bear plaintiffs name or handwriting; she had never seen the
check before; and she did not endorse it (id. at 45 and 63-65).
Two days after the meeting, plaintiff sent Maestre a text message (id. at 67-68), in which
plaintiff maintained that she had been "wrongly accused" (NYSCEF Doc No. 31, Maestre
affirmation, exhibit A at 1). Plaintiff recounted that she had presented Maestre with a CPW
Pediatric check to sign because Peracchia was away, and that Maestre was concerned that she
could not sign her own name (id. at 1-2). Plaintiff continued, "[a]fter that issue, I went to Dr Rob
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 3 of 15
Motion No. 001
3 of 15
[* 3]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
and asked him ifhe could sign Ortho and you could sign pedo and PM. He sad [sic] yes you both
signed on all three. My actions that day was [sic] me doing my job protecting you from signing
on an account you weren't sure you signed on" (id. at 2-3). The check was meant "for the air
conditioner repair man [sic] who we owed money to and he just randomly stopped in for a check"
(id. at 3). Maestre responded that they would "look through all the checks to figure this out. We'll
let you know if we find anything new" (id. at 4). At her deposition, plaintiff explained that she
had given Maestre the invoice for a $200 repair, after which Maestre signed the check with
Peracchia's initials (id. at 69-70). Plaintiff never heard back from defendants (id. at 68). Plaintiff
stated, "I clearly couldn't be younger and prettier or I wasn't willing to be as titillating as this
BMW girl would be, and I think they made this whole thing up at my expense" (id. at 43).
Maestre, who was born in 1967, testified that Peracchia had once discussed his BMW
dealership experience with staff(NYSCEF Doc No. 26, DiLorenzo affirmation, exhibit C, Maestre
4/29/2022 tr at 46 and 268). The conversation about the "BMW Girl" centered on the positive
customer service Peracchia had received, and "we were trying to encourage" all staff to provide
similar customer service (id. at 246-247). Plaintiffs job included customer care, and this involved
greeting patients and giving tours (id. at 279-280 and 282). Plaintiff never complained to Maestre
about having to perform customer service (id. at 283). Maestre testified that there was no truth to
plaintiffs allegations about having to dress like the BMW Girl (id. at 240-242) and denied that
she and Peracchia told plaintiff to flirt with customers or dress provocatively (id. at 275). Maestre
never witnessed Peracchia telling plaintiff to dress in that manner (id. at 251 ), and "[plaintiff] never
dressed that way" (id. at 252). Maestre also testified that the children visiting their offices were
usually accompanied by their mothers or their nannies (id. at 254-253).
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 4 of 15
Motion No. 001
4 of 15
[* 4]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
Maestre attributed the decision to terminate plaintiffs employment to a lack of trust (id at
145). Maestre testified that plaintiff came into her office on a day Peracchia was not present, "puts
a check in front of me and she asks me to sign it" with Peracchia' s signature, even though
Maestre's name appeared on the check, as it was from a joint personal account (id at 156-157, 179
and 182). Plaintiff told Maestre the check was for architectural or construction work at the office
(id at 174 and 182) and that "'Rob said for you,' you know, 'to sign it,' you know, 'with Rob's
signature"' (id at 157). Plaintiff had never visited the Individual Defendants' home where they
kept their personal checks (id at 310-311 ), and Maestre could not recall a prior occasion where
she or Peracchia had used a personal check to pay for an office expense (id at 203). Maestre added
that she thought "it was an odd request ... [and] I didn't feel good about it," but nevertheless she
"scribbled Rob's signature on it" (id at 158). Maestre stated that she did not know why plaintiff
asked her to sign Peracchia's name since plaintiff had access to a stamp of Peracchia's signature
(NYSCEF Doc No. 27, DiLorenzo affirmation exhibit C, Maestre 4/29/2022 tr at 34).
Maestre later learned that Peracchia had brought three personal checks he had signed to the
office for mailing, but their accountant never received them (NYSCEF Doc No. 26 at 159 and
172). A few weeks later, Peracchia showed Maestre one of the missing checks and told her that
"someone took the check, [and] washed it" (id at 159-160 and 162). Maestre testified that it was
"the check that ... [plaintiff] put on my desk for me to forge a signature" (id at 160). Maestre
recounted that she spoke to plaintiff and gave her 24 hours to find the invoice for the work, but
plaintiff could not produce anything and had no explanation (id at 161, 189, 192 and 289-290).
At that point, she and Peracchia jointly decided to terminate plaintiff (id at 161 ).
Peracchia, who was 51 years of age at his deposition, testified that he spoke at a full staff
meeting about the positive experience he had at a BMW dealership, explaining that "the customer
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 5 of 15
Motion No. 001
5 of 15
[* 5]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
service experience was completely changed from the person checking me to the service person.
They were completely professionally dressed .... And they even had a position where there was
someone just walking around making sure that everyone was being taken care of' (NYSCEF Doc
No. 28, DiLorenzo affirmation, exhibit D at 16 and 222-223). Peracchia added that a woman, who
was likely in her twenties, "approached me in a business suit [asking] ... have you been taken care
of by your service provider" (id. at 226-227). The only time Peracchia discussed his experience
at the BMW dealership occurred at this meeting (id. at 228). Peracchia could not recall speaking
with plaintiff about "the BMW girl ... all I remember is discussing it with the whole team" (id. at
229). Regarding plaintiffs allegations, Peracchia testified that he "did not ask [plaintiff] to
sexualize her appearance," "did not ask [plaintiff] to do any of that," and "I never said it" (id. at
220, 222 and 230). When asked whether he had discussed his BMW experience with plaintiff on
a weekly basis, Peracchia expressed, "[t]hat's not true" (id. at 229). Peracchia recalled only asking
plaintiff "to see if patients were being taken care of' (id. at 230). As to the dress code, Peracchia
stated that administrative staff were expected to wear black business attire, but when defendants
hired plaintiff, "we felt that she was professionally dressed and she could make that decision as
the office manager" of dressing in a manner "that would distinguish her from the rest of the
administrative team. That's what she wanted to wear" (id. at 233-234).
Peracchia testified that he once sent plaintiff an email explaining how he wanted her act
"like a traffic director" and give great customer service (id. at 209) by "be[ing] more involved on
the clinic floor and with the team in the afternoons[,] ... helping with patient flow, making sure
that they were supported, interacting with patients" (id at 208). Peracchia did not believe he had
told plaintiff to speak to patients between 3 :30 to 6 p.m. every day but this was a concept put in
place by defendants' consultants to improve care (id. at 214). Plaintiffs role as a manager would
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 6 of 15
Motion No. 001
6 of 15
[* 6]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
expand by ensuring things ran smoothly (id. at 215). Perrachia stated that "[t]here is no walking"
(id. at 215) but defendants expected plaintiff's presence on the floor to help staff (id. at 216).
Peracchia testified that in October 2016, he brought three personal checks to the office for
mailing (id. at 84-86, 95 and 102). He "probably" gave his personal correspondence to Michelle
Rosario (Rosario) or plaintiff for mailing (id. at 88), though he could not recall if he gave the
checks to plaintiff (id. at 85 and 91 ). After their accountant did not receive the checks (id. at 97),
Peracchia learned that a $3,000 check had been cashed (id. at 76, 107, 109 and 113). Peracchia
did not know "Anna Holchak," the payee on the check (id. at 110), and he never found out how
the check was cashed (id. at 118). Peracchia initially believed "the check was stolen and the
writing removed and then forged" (id. at 111 ). Peracchia testified that he had never used a personal
check to pay for a business expense, and he and Maestre had not had any construction or
architectural work performed on their home during plaintiffs employment (id. at 133-134).
Peracchia believed he had given the checks to plaintiff "[b]ecause she presented it to my wife and
asked her to sign my name on it'' (id. at 88 and 124). Peracchia testified that Maestre told him that
plaintiff had presented the check to her and asked her to sign his name (id. at 124). Neither he nor
Maestre kept their personal checks at the office (id. at 137), and plaintiff did not have access to the
personal checks they kept in their home (id. at 140). Peracchia reported the incident to Citibank
(id. at 112 and 116-117) and to the police to "make it official" (id. at 140), later admitting that
plaintiff's decision to retain an attorney may have been a factor in his decision to file a police
report (id. at 273 and 291). Peracchia testified that he and Maestre decided to terminate plaintiffs
employment "[b]ecause there was a fraudulent check, personal check, that went missing that was
posted to my account. And Eve had told me that Marie asked her to sign my name on that check"
(id. at 130).
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 7 of 15
Motion No. 001
7 of 15
[* 7]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
Rosario, who was born in 1989, worked as the office manager for both Practices until
January 2016, when defendants hired plaintiff to manage CPW Orthodontics (NYSCEF Doc No.
29, DiLorenzo affirmation, exhibit E, Rosario tr at 53, 59-60 and 62). Rosario testified that she
did not agree with plaintiffs allegation that plaintiff had to dress differently for customers, though
Rosario admitted that she was not present for every meeting between plaintiff and the Individual
Defendants (id at 163). Rosario knew that plaintiff was expected to "walk around ... the bay, if
patients needed to schedule their next appointment, she would do it right there chair side, and she
would just make sure that everything was running smoothly" (id at 171-172). Rosario testified
that once, after a team huddle, Peracchia discussed his positive customer service experience at a
BMW dealership (id. at 175). Peracchia described the female BMW representative as "really great
at customer service, ... super friendly, and ... very knowledgeable" (id. at 179). Peracchia did not
discuss the representative's wardrobe, physical features or appearance or whether she was
flirtatious (id at 180-181 ). Rosario believed that Peracchia shared his experience at BMW as an
example of great customer service (id. at 182). Plaintiff was not present at that meeting, which
was limited to the CPW Pediatrics' team (id at 177-178).
Rosario recalled that she was present when the Individuals Defendants accused plaintiff of
asking Maestre to sign Peracchia's name on a check (id. at 122). Rosario recounted that she was
shown a personal check, not a business check (id at 240). She recalled that after the meeting,
plaintiff told her, '"I didn't do this"' (id. at 124). Rosario also testified that she was not allowed
to use the stamps of the Individual Defendants' signatures on checks (id. at 246). Two months
after defendants terminated plaintiff, defendants promoted Rosario to office manager for both
Practices (id at 74 and 243).
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 8 of 15
Motion No. 001
8 of 15
[* 8]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
Plaintiff commenced this action on November 21, 2019, by filing a summons and
complaint pleading two causes of action for age and gender discrimination under the City HRL.
Defendants now move for summary judgment on the grounds that: (1) plaintiff cannot establish a
prima facie case for age or gender discrimination; (2) defendants have furnished a legitimate,
nondiscriminatory reason for terminating plaintiff's employment; and (3) there is no evidentiary
route under which plaintiff may prevail on her claims. Submitted in support are affidavits,
deposition transcripts, the allegedly fraudulent check, and other exhibits.
Peracchia avers that he "never dictated the type of clothes Plaintiff was expected to wear"
and denies directing plaintiff or any other staff member to "'sexualize' themselves or otherwise
act in any manner other than professional" (NYSCEF Doc No. 32, Peracchia aff, ,r,r 18 and 26).
Peracchia admits that he routinely referred to his BMW dealership experience, but states that he
"never focused on the age, appearance, or clothing of any customer service representatives" and
never commented on plaintiff's age or gender (id, ,r,r 24 and 26). Regarding the circumstances of
plaintiff's termination, Peracchia avers that he and Maestre agreed plaintiff should not have asked
Maestre to sign his name on a check, and because they lost "trust" in plaintiff, he and Maestre
mutually agreed to terminate plaintiff's employment (id., ,r,r 33-34).
Maestre's affidavit contains similar averments (NYSCEF Doc No. 30, ,r,r 1-14 and 23-24).
Maestre attests that she never heard Peracchia "direct Plaintiff to 'sexualize' herself' (id., ,r 17),
and that she never commented on plaintiff's age or gender (id., ,r 18). Maestre attests that when
plaintiff, who maintained records of all invoices, was unable to "produce an invoice or the check
stub record for the business check she claims she wrote" (id, ,r 23), Maestre "lost trust in Plaintiff
and her ability to manage the practice and handle our financial affairs" (id, ,r 25). Maestre and
Peracchia then mutually agreed to terminate plaintiffs employment (id, ,r 26).
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 9 of 15
Motion No. 001
9 of 15
[* 9]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
Plaintiff, in response, argues that: (1) she has established a prima facie case of age and
gender discrimination, (2) she was subjected to a hostile work environment, which defendants
failed to address; and (3) the stated reason for her termination was pretextual. Plaintiff avers that
the Individual Defendants "explicitly instructed me to sexualize my appearance for the family,
guardians, and/or caretakers of patients," telling plaintiff"about a very young female employee in
her twenties working for BMW doing nothing more than parading her body and flirting with male
customers. They repeatedly stressed that the BMW employee was very young, very pretty, and
provocatively dressed, making clear that I was none of these things" (NYSCEF Doc No. 52, Leon
affirmation, exhibit 1, plaintiff aff, ,r 8). Plaintiff further avers that she was unaware of the
Individual Defendants having asked any other staff member to dress or act in a similar manner
(id, ,r,r 9 and 11 ). Plaintiff further states that Peracchia repeatedly "harassed" plaintiff each week
by commenting on "her appearance, the appearance of the BMW girl, and the expectation of
titillating the family, guardians, and/or caretakers of patients with this provocative role" (id, ,r 11 ).
As for her termination, plaintiff maintains that defendants falsely accused her of cashing a personal
check even though plaintiff did not have access to the Individual Defendants' personal checks and
never asked Maestre to sign Peracchia's name on any check (id., ,r 16).
Defendants, in reply, maintain that plaintiff never pleaded a hostile work environment
claim in her complaint. Defendants also contend that plaintiff's claims are based on
unsubstantiated allegations, as plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination and
defendants have presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for her dismissal.
Discussion
A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of "mak[ing] a prima facie
showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 10 of 15
Motion No. 001
10 of 15
[* 10]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,
324 [1986]). The "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party"
(Bazdaric v Almah Partners LLC, 41 NY3d 310, 316 [2024] [internal quotation marks and citation
omitted]). If the moving party meets its prima facie burden, "the party opposing the motion must
demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action
or tender an acceptable excuse for [its] failure so to do" (Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d
557,560 [1980]).
The City HRL makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee "in
compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment" because of that employee's
actual or perceived age or gender (Administrative Code § 8-107 [ 1] [a] [3 ]). City HRL claims are
analyzed under both the burden-shifting framework articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v
Green(411 US 792 [1973]) (McDonnell Douglas) and the mixed motive framework (Hamburg v
New York Univ. Sch. ofMedicine, 155 AD3d 66, 72-73 [I st Dept 2017]). A defendant moving for
summary judgment dismissing a City HRL claim "bears the burden of showing that, based on the
evidence before the court and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiffs favor, no jury could
find defendant liable under any of the evidcntiary routes: under the McDonnell Douglas test, or as
one of a number of mixed motives, by direct or circumstantial evidence" (Bennett v Health Mgt.
Sys., Inc., 92 AD3d 29, 41 [1st Dept 2011], Iv denied 18 NY3d 811 [2012]). The plaintiff may
defeat such motion by furnishing "some evidence that at least one of the reasons proffered by
defendant is false, misleading, or incomplete" (id.), or by showing that the defendant "was
motivated, at least in part, by discriminatory bias" (McIntosh v Department ofEduc. ofthe City of
N.Y., 202 AD3d 481,482 [1st Dept 2022]).
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 11 of 15
Motion No. 001
11 of 15
[* 11]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
It is well settled that "[d]isputed factual issues, especially those that require resolution of
credibility issues, are generally unsuitable for summary adjudication" (Franco v Hyatt Corp., 189
AD3d 569,570 [1st Dept 2020]). In this case, plaintiff's claims for age and gender discrimination
are predicated upon the allegation that defendants repeatedly instructed plaintiff to "be just like"
the BMW Girl (NYSCEF Doc No. 25 at 34). Defendants, however, have adamantly and
strenuously denied having engaged in the alleged conduct underlying plaintiff's claims. As such,
whether defendants had ever instructed plaintiff to "be just like" the BMW Girl is in sharp dispute,
which creates an issue of fact as to credibility that cannot be resolved on summary judgment (see
McRedmond v Sutton Place Rest. & Bar, Inc., 95 AD3d 671, 672 [1st Dept 2012] ["Hanafy's
denial that he engaged in any of the alleged conduct and the other individual defendants' denial of
any knowledge of such conduct raises genuine credibility issues that the court may not decide on
a motion for summary judgment"]). Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment
dismissing the age and gender discrimination claims is denied.
To the extent plaintiff claims to have pled a cause of action for hostile work environment
on the basis of age and gender, the complaint does not contain a separate heading alleging hostile
work environment as a standalone cause of action (NYSCEF Doc No. 78, oral argument 11/2/2023
tr at 29; oral argument 1/9/2024 tr at 33). Indeed, "a claim for hostile work environment is 'a
wholly separate cause of action designed to address other types of work place behavior, like
constant jokes and ridicule or physical intimidation"' (Mejia v Roosevelt Is. Med. Assoc., 31 Misc
3d 1206[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50506[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NY County 2011], affd 95 AD3d 570 [1st
Dept 2012], quoting Magadia v Napolitano, 2009 WL 510739, *17 [SD NY, Feb. 26, 2009, No.
06 Civ. 14386 (CM)]; see also Richards v Gateway Frontline Servs., Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op
3411 l[U], *3 [Sup Ct, NY County 2011], citing ForrestvJewish Guild/or the Blind, 3 NY3d 295,
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 12 of 15
Motion No. 001
12 of 15
[* 12]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
305 [2004] [a hostile work environment claim is separate from a discriminatory employment
claim]; but see Garcia v City ofNew York, 2023 NY Slip Op 32966[U], * 10 [Sup Ct, NY County
2023], quoting Cardwell v Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, 2020 WL 6274826, *29 [SD NY, Oct.
24, 2020, No. 1: l 9-cv-10256-GHW] ["[t]here is no separate 'hostile work environment' claim
under the NYCHRL"]).
Ordinarily, a plaintiff cannot plead a new theory of liability in opposition to a motion for
summary judgment (see Vega v Kirschenbaum, 209 AD3d 458,459 [1st Dept 2022] [stating that
the plaintiff could not raise a new theory of liability for the first time in opposition to a summary
judgment motion]). The complaint herein alleges that plaintiff "was expected to 'Wow' the
customers with enticing/tantalizing smiles, pretty clothes, and high heels" (NYSCEF Doc No. 1,
,r 27); that "[t]hese offensive and discriminatory comments were pervasive and continuous for the
remainder of Plaintiff's employment with Defendants" (id., ,r 31 ); that plaintiff was subjected to
"over seven months of continuous, deplorable remarks about [her] appearance, gender and age"
(id., ,r 32); and that Peracchia "relentlessly harassed [plaintiff] - multiple times per week - about
... her appearance, the appearance of the BMW girl, and the expectation of her titillating patients
with this provocative role" while '"working the bay"' (id., ,r 29).
The City HRL must be "construed liberally to accomplish its uniquely broad and remedial
purpose[]" (Hamburg, 155 AD3d at 81 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). As such,
a complaint alleging a claim under the City HRL "need only give 'fair notice' of the nature of the
claim and its grounds" (Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 145 [1st Dept 2009];
see also Kirbyv Carlo's Bakery42nd & 8th LLC, 212 AD3d441, 442 [1st Dept2023] ["[a]lthough
plaintiffs first cause of action is labeled as one for 'hostile workplace,' Supreme Court was not
bound by that designation and plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action for employment
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 13 of 15
Motion No. 001
13 of 15
[* 13]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
discrimination under both the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws"]; cf
Melendez v New York City Tr. Auth., 204 AD3d 542, 544 [1st Dept 2022] ["[t]he complaint cannot
fairly be read to include a separate hostile work environment claim based on plaintiff's post-
complaint treatment, and plaintiff cannot properly raise one in opposition to summary judgment"]).
In view of these principles, the complaint nominally pleads a claim for hostile work environment
under the City HRL.
A single offensive remark or comment in some circumstances may suffice to state a claim
for a hostile work environment under the City HRL (see Riggan v City of New York, 192 AD3d
498, 499 [1st Dept 2021]). Here, plaintiff avers that defendants "explicitly instructed [her] to
sexualize [her] appearance" and "relentlessly harassed" her for failing to do so (NYSCEF Doc No.
52, ,i,i 8 and 11 ), whereas defendants repeatedly denied that these incidents ever occurred
(NYSCEF Doc No. 30, ir,i 14 and 18; NYSCEF Doc No. 32, ,i,i 18, 22 and 26-27). This court
recognizes that defendants did not address the hostile work environment claim, of which they were
not aware, in their initial moving papers (oral argument 1/9/2024 tr at 30-32) and that plaintiff did
not move to amend her complaint to clarify her causes of action, despite having been afforded the
opportunity to do so (id. at 34). Nevertheless, given the conflicting testimony and averments as to
whether any allegedly offensive comments were even made, it would be improper to determine
issues of credibility on this motion (see McRedmond, 95 AD3d at 672).
Accordingly, it is
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 14 of 15
Motion No. 001
14 of 15
[* 14]
INDEX NO. 161370/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 80 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/22/2025
ORDERED that defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's
complaint is denied.
SHLOMO S. HAGLER, J.S.C.
~
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
161370/2019 YULIANO, MARIE vs. CENTRAL PARK WEST Page 15 of 15
Motion No. 001
15 of 15
[* 15]