Kimmel v. State of New York, CA 07-00506.
| Decision Date | 14 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | CA 07-00506. |
| Citation | 853 N.Y.S.2d 779,49 A.D.3d 1210,2008 NY Slip Op 02277 |
| Parties | BETTY L. KIMMEL, Respondent, v. STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Evelyn Frazee, J.), entered March 26, 2007. The judgment awarded plaintiff damages against defendants State of New York and New York State Division of State Police upon a jury verdict.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Plaintiff, a former State Trooper, commenced this action in 1995 alleging that she was subjected to various acts of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation and was exposed to a hostile work environment from 1979 to 1994. On appeal from a judgment awarding plaintiff damages after a jury trial, defendants-appellants (defendants) contend that Supreme Court erred in denying that part of their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) seeking dismissal of the complaint as time-barred insofar as it alleges violations of the Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15; see CPLR 214 [2]). As a preliminary matter, we note that defendants' appeal from the judgment brings up for review "any non-final judgment or order which necessarily affects the final judgment" (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; see generally Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]), and thus we may properly review the contention of defendants with respect to the order denying that part of their motion entered on January 16, 1996. Nevertheless, we reject that contention. Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and according plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, as we must in reviewing that part of defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) (see 190 Murray St. Assoc., LLC v City of Rochester, 19 AD3d 1116 [2005]), we conclude that the allegations in the complaint do not concern several discrete acts but, rather, they concern a hostile work environment, i.e., "a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one `unlawful employment practice'" (National Railroad Passenger Corporation v Morgan, 536 US 101, 117 [2002]). We further conclude that plaintiff has alleged a continuing violation based on the allegations of "`specific and related instances of discrimination [that were] permitted by [defendants] to continue unremedied for so long as to amount to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kimmel v. State
...was awarded damages upon a jury verdict in her favor, and this Court affirmed that judgment on a prior appeal ( Kimmel v. State of New York, 49 A.D.3d 1210, 853 N.Y.S.2d 779, lv. dismissed 11 N.Y.3d 729, 864 N.Y.S.2d 381, 894 N.E.2d 644). Thereafter, plaintiff and Logan-Baldwin each moved f......
-
Carlson v. Geneva City School Dist.
...three-year statute of limitations, pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR") § 2142. See, Kimmel v. State, 49 A.D.3d 1210, 1211, 853 N.Y.S.2d 779, 780 (4th Dept.2008) (Stating that limitations period for NYHRL employment discrimination claims is three years, citing CPLR § 2......
-
Abdullah v. Panko Elec. & Maint. Inc
...brought under the NYHRL is three years. Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 80 F.3d 708, (2d Cir. 1996); Kimmel v. State, 49 A.D.3d 1210, 1211 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dept. 2008). However, "[u]nder the continuing violation doctrine, a plaintiff may bring suit based on conduct that occurred ou......
-
Lozada v. Hook
...to a discriminatory policy or practice" (Clark v. State of New York, 302 A.D.2d 942, 945, 754 N.Y.S.2d 814 ; see Kimmel v. State of New York, 49 A.D.3d 1210, 853 N.Y.S.2d 779 ; Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 704 [2d Cir.] ). Based upon this doctrine and the nature of a hostile work envi......