Henriquez v City of New York - Appellate Division Decision

New York Appellate Division

Filed March 17th, 2026

Detected March 18th, 2026

Summary

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York reversed a lower court's dismissal of a discrimination complaint against the City of New York. The court found the complaint was timely filed under the New York City Human Rights Law and reinstated the case for further consideration of the plaintiff's amendment request.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, reversed an order that dismissed Antoinette Henriquez's complaint against the City of New York and other defendants. The lower court had granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding the complaint untimely. However, the Appellate Division found that the plaintiff had the option to pursue either a CPLR article 78 proceeding or a plenary action and that the complaint, filed on October 13, 2023, was within the three-year statute of limitations for the New York City Human Rights Law. The court reinstated the complaint and remanded the matter for consideration of the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend.

This decision has significant implications for employers, particularly public entities, in New York City. It clarifies that discrimination claims under the City Human Rights Law are subject to a three-year statute of limitations and that a plenary action is a viable path for plaintiffs. Regulated entities should review their internal procedures for handling discrimination complaints and ensure compliance with the applicable statutes of limitations. The case will now proceed to the lower court for a determination on the plaintiff's request to amend the complaint, which could introduce new claims or factual allegations.

What to do next

Review internal procedures for handling discrimination complaints in light of the reinstated complaint and potential amendment.
Ensure compliance with the three-year statute of limitations for claims under the New York City Human Rights Law.

Source document (simplified)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Add Note

Henriquez v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Citations: 2026 NY Slip Op 01460
Docket Number: Index No. 160044/23; Appeal No. 6119; Case No. 2025-01054
Opinion
Authorities (4)
Cited By (0)
Summaries (0)
Similar Cases (0)
PDF

Combined Opinion

Henriquez v City of New York (2026 NY Slip Op 01460)
| Henriquez v City of New York |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 01460 |
| Decided on March 17, 2026 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |

Decided and Entered: March 17, 2026
Before: Webber, J.P., Friedman, González, O'Neill Levy, Michael, JJ.
Index No. 160044/23|Appeal No. 6119|Case No. 2025-01054|

*[1]Antoinette Henriquez, Plaintiff-Appellant,

City of New York et al., Defendants-Respondents.**

Ballon Stoll P.C., New York (Avram Turkel of counsel), for appellant.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (Hanna L. St. Marie of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeanine R. Johnson, J.), entered on or about January 22, 2025, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and denied as moot plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, defendants' motion to dismiss denied, the complaint reinstated, and the matter remanded for consideration of plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint.

Supreme Court improperly granted defendants' motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's complaint being untimely. A plaintiff alleging discrimination by a public employer has the option to pursue either a CPLR article 78 proceeding or a plenary action (see Koerner v State of N.Y., Pilgrim Psychiatric Ctr., 62 NY2d 442, 447 [1984]). As defendants concede, plaintiff filed the complaint on October 13, 2023, well within the three-year statute of limitations afforded by the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL).

Because a motion to dismiss is subject to de novo review, this Court may determine whether plaintiff stated a claim under the City HRL, even without a ruling from Supreme Court on this issue (see generally Consolidated Rest. Operations, Inc. v Westport Ins. Corp., 205 AD3d 76, 81 [1st Dept 2022], affd 41 NY3d 415 [2024]).

In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211[a][7]), we must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint, accord the plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory (see Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 144-145 [1st Dept 2009]). A discrimination case is "reviewed under notice pleading standards," meaning plaintiff is not required to plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case, but rather, "need only give fair notice of the nature of the claim and its grounds" (id. at 145).

Plaintiff, a former New York City Police Department sergeant, sufficiently pleaded that she suffered a disability when she was injured in the line of duty, that she was capable of performing her duties after her injury with a reasonable accommodation (see Phillips v City of New York, 66 AD3d 179, 181-182 [1st Dept 2009]), and that defendants subjected her to adverse treatment in close temporal proximity to her seeking medical treatment. Indeed, plaintiff pleaded that for five years after her injury she successfully worked for defendants under a reasonable accommodation, and that defendants removed plaintiff's accommodation by forcing her to retire without engaging in a collaborative dialogue (see id.).

Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim was also sufficiently pleaded and should not have been dismissed. The alleged comments and remarks to plaintiff at the time she made a disability-related request were more than "petty slights and trivial inconveniences" (cf. Etienne v MTA N.Y. City Tr. Auth., 223 AD3d 612, 613 [1st Dept 2024]).

As the court did not reach the merits of plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint, we remand for the court to determine that motion on the merits (see Gaughan v Russo, 228 AD3d 428, 428 [1st Dept 2024]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: March 17, 2026