Motion to Dismiss in Aileen Betances, Ana Rodriguez, Awilda Liriano, Lenise Santana, Perla Henriquez v. Popular Bank, Amber M Becerril, Ashfiqur Rahman, Evelyn Mendez, Ileana Rivera, Valerie Camejo| Trellis.Law

On July 26, 2019 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Aileen Betances, Ana Rodriguez, Awilda Liriano, Lenise Santana, Perla Henriquez, and Amber M Becerril, Ashfiqur Rahman, Evelyn Mendez, Ileana Rivera, Popular Bank, Valerie Camejo, for Torts - Other (retaliation) in the District Court of New York County.

Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK

AILEEN BETANCES, ANA RODRIGUEZ,
AWILDA LIRIANO, LENISE SANTANA,
and PERLA HENRIQUEZ, on behalf of
themselves and all persons similarly sitm±cd,

Plaintiffs, Index No. 157355/2019

-against-

POPULAR BANK, AMBER M. BECERRIL,
ASHFIQUR RAHMAN, EVELYN MENDEZ,
ILEANA RIVERA, and VALERIE CAMEJO,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS OF
DEFENDANTS AMBER BECERRIL, ASHFIOUR RAHMAN. ILEANA RIVERA AND
VALERIE CAMEJO

VEDDER PRICE P.C.
Blythe E. Lovinger
Jonathan A. Wexler
Monique E. Chase
1633 Broadway, 31st Floor
New York, New York 10019

(212) 407-7700
Attorneys for Individual Defendants
Amber Becerril, Ashf iqur Rahman,
Ileana Rivera, and Valerie Camejo

1 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1
...................................................................................................

FACTUAL 4
BACKGROUND........................................................................................................

STANDARD OF REVIEW...........................................................................................................
5

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................
6

I. The Individual Defendants Are Not Liable in Their Individual Capacities
under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL..........................................................................
6

A. The Individual Defendants Are Not Liable in Their Individual
Capacities under the NYSHRL..................................................................
8

B. The Individual Defendants Are Not Liable under an Aiding and

Abetting Theory under the NYSHRL or the NYCHRL and Must
Be Dismissed as Defendants......................................................................
9

II. Plaintiffs Rodriguez's and Santana's Claims Must Be Dismissed as Both
Fail to Identify Any of the Individual Defendants...............................................
10

III. Plaintiffs Fail to State a Claim of Sex Discrimination and Sexual
Harassment under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL .................................................
10

A. The Actions Allegedly Perpetrated by the Individual Defendants
Do Not Raise an Inference of Discrimination or Demonstrate
Harassment Because of 12
Gender...............................................................

IV. Plaintiffs Fail to Demonstrate that they Placed Protected Complaints or
Suffered any Adverse Acts Under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL ..................
13

A. Plaintiff Liriano Fails to Plead Any Facts Linking the Individual
Defendants'
Alleged Actions to a Protected 14
Complaint..........................

B. The Remaining Plaintiffs Fail to Allege that the Individual
Plaintiffs Knew or Should Have Known about Their Complaints 14
..........

Plaintiffs'
V. Claims for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Should
Be Dismissed as a Matter of Law........................................................................
15

A. Plaintiffs Fail to Allege Sufficiently Extreme and Outrageous
Conduct....................................................................................................
16

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................
18

.
-1-

2 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Alfano v. Costello,
294 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2002).....................................................................................................11

Anderson v. Janson Supermarkets,
LLC, Index No. 30693/2010, 2011 WL 2859816 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cty. July 6,
2011)........................................................................................................................................15

Askin v. Dep't of Educ. of City of N.Y.,
110 A.D.3d 621, 973 N.Y.S.2d 629 (1st Dep't 2013).............................................................10

Breitstein v. Michael C. Fina Co.,
156 A.D.3d 536, 68 N.Y.S.3d 41 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017).......................................................14

Brennan v. Metro. Opera Ass'n, Inc.,
284 A.D. 2d 66 (1st Dep't 2001).............................................................................................12

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White,
548 U.S. 53 (2006)...................................................................................................................13

Cadet-Legros v. N.Y. Univ. Hosp. Ctr.,
135 A.D.3d 196 (1st Dep't 2015)............................................................................................13

Caniglia v. Chi. Tribune-N.Y. News Syndicate,
204 A.D.2d 233, 612 N.Y.S.2d 146 (1st Dep't 1994)...............................................................6

Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
2007 WL 2822423 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Sept. 27, 2007) ....................................................16

Conde v. Yeshiva Univ.,
16 A.D.3d 185, 792 N.Y.S.2d 387 (1st Dep't 2005)...............................................................16

Emmer v. The Trs. of Columbia Univ. in the City of N.Y.,
No. 151510/2013, 2014 WL 1805532 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 24, 2014).......................................8

Feingold v. New York,
366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 2004).......................................................................................................7

Fletcher v. Dakota, Inc.,
99 A.D.3d 43, 948 N.Y.S.2d 263 (1st Dep't 2012).................................................................15

Foley v. Mobil Chem. Co.,
626 N.Y.S.2d 906 (4th Dep't 1995).........................................................................................17

..
- 11 -

3 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind,
3 N.Y. 3d 295 13
(2004).........................................................................................................11,

Gad-Tadros v. Bessemer Venture Partners,
326 F. Supp. 2d 417 (E.D.N.Y. 2004).......................................................................................7

Gold v. Lipsky, Goodkin & Co.,
2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6387 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Nov. 21, 2012)..........................................6

Green v. Rochdale Vill.Soc. Servs.,
15 Civ. 5824 (BMC), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102697 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 4,
2016)........................................................................................................................................10

Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.,
510 U.S. 17 (1993)...................................................................................................................11

Harris v.NYU Langone Med. Ctr.,
No. 12 Civ. 0454 (RA), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99328 (S.D.N.Y. July 9,
2013)..........................................................................................................................................7

Hernandez v. Kaisman,
103 A.D.3d 106 (1st Dep't 12
2012)......................................................................................11,

Howell v. N.Y. Post Co., Inc.,
81 N.Y.2d 115, 596 N.Y.S.2d 350 17
(1993).........................................................................16,

Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v. Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP,
120 A.D.3d 18 (1stDep't 2014)..............................................................................................11

Krause v. Lancer & Loader Grp., LLC,
Index No. 158934/2012, 2013 NY Slip Op 23142, 40 Misc. 3d 385, 965
N.Y.S.2d 312 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County May 1, 8
2013)..............................................................7,

Leder v. Spiegel,
31 A.D.3d 266, 819 N.Y.S.2d 26 (1st Dep't 2006)...................................................................6

Leibowitz v. Bank Leumi Trust Co.,
152 A.D.2d 169, 548 N.Y.S.2d 513 (2d Dep't 1989)..............................................................16

Matter of Medical Express Ambulance Corp. v. Kirkland,
79 A.D. 3d 886 (2d Dept 2010).................................................................................................7

Megna v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
215 A.D.2d 542, 626 N.Y.S.2d 546 (2d Dep't 1995)................................................................6

Mejia v. Roosevelt Is. Med. Assoc.,
31 Misc. 3d 1206(A), 2011 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1354 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 28,
2011)........................................................................................................................................13

...
- 111 -

4 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights v. ABS Elecs., Inc.,
102 A.D.3d 967 (2nd Dep't 2013).............................................................................................6

Nelson v. HSBC Bank USA,
87 A.D.3d 995 (2d Dep't 2011)...............................................................................................11

Palmer v. Cook,
65 Misc. 3d 374 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019).......................................................................................9

Patane v. Clark,
508 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2007).....................................................................................................11

Patrowich v. Chem. Bank,
63 N.Y.2d 541 8
(1984)............................................................................................................6,

Petrosino v. Bell Atl.,
385 F.3d 210 (2d Cir. 2004).....................................................................................................12

Phillips v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.,
132 A.D.3d 149 (1st Dep't 2015)............................................................................................11

Raneri v. McCarey,
712 F. Supp. 2d 271 (S.D.N.Y. 10
2010)..................................................................................7,

Reid v. Ingerman Smith LLP,
876 F. Supp. 2d 176 (E.D.N.Y. 2012).....................................................................................10

Salemi v. Gloria's Tribeca Inc.,
115 A.D.3d 569 (1st Dep't 2014)............................................................................................12

Schiano v. Quality Payroll Sys., Inc.,
445 F.3d 597 (2d Cir. 2006).....................................................................................................11

Skillgames, LLC v. Brody,
1 A.D.3d 247, 250,767 N.Y.S.2d 418 (1st Dep't 2003)............................................................6

Steiner Sports Mktg., Inc. v. Weinreb,
88 A.D.3d 482 (1st Dept. 2011)...............................................................................................17

Strauss v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ.,
26 A.D.3d 67 (3rd Dep't 2005)..................................................................................................7

Stuto v. Fleishman,
164 F.3d 820 (2d Cir. 1999).....................................................................................................17

Williams v. N.Y. City Hous. Auth.,
61 A.D.3d 62 (1st Dep't 13
2009)..........................................................................................11,

- iv -

5 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

Statues and Regulations

N.Y.C. ADMIN. CODE § 16
8-107(1)(a)...........................................................................................7,

.Y . C .
A m. C ODM
DE § 8N_ 107(7)...................................................................................................13

.Y . C .
A m. C ODM
DE § 8N- 502........................................................................................................16

N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 215(3)..................................................................................................................17

N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 6
3211(a)(7)......................................................................................................1,
5,

N.Y. EXEC. LAW §§ 290-301 .........................................................................................................16

N.Y. EXEC. LAW § 296(7)..............................................................................................................13

6 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

Defendants Amber Becerril ("Becerril"), Ashfiqur Rahman ("Rahman"), Ileana Rivera

("Camejo,"
("Rivera") and Valerie Camejo and, collectively with Becerril, Rahman, and Rivera,

the "Individual Defendants"), by their attorneys, Vedder Price P.C., submit this Memorandum of

Law in support of their Motion, pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR")

("Complaint"
Section 3211(a)(7), to dismiss the Verified Class Action Complaint or "Compl.") of

Aileen Betances ("Betances"), Ana Rodriguez ("Rodriguez"), Awilda Liriano ("Liriano"), Lenise

("Henriquez"
Santana ("Santana") and Perla Henriquez and, collectively with Betances,

Rodriguez, Liriano and Santana, "Plaintiffs") for failure to state a cause of action.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Plaintiffs purportedly bring this action to recover damages for alleged sex discrimination

and sexual harassment under the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), New York

City Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq.; retaliation under the NYCHRL and the New York State

Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), New York State Executive Law § 296 et seq.; a hostile work

environment on the basis of gender under the NYSHRL; aiding and abetting under the NYSHRL

NYCHRL;¹
and the and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In addition to their claims

against Popular Bank, Plaintiffs also assert claims against Defendants Becerril, Rahman, Rivera,

and Camejo in their individual capacities under the aforementioned statutes.

Plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants are all current or former employees of Popular

Bank. They allwork in various branch offices in the Bronx and Manhattan, with the exception of

Camejo, who works in Popular Bank's New York headquarters. Plaintiffs and the Individual

Defendants were at times work colleagues who also socialized during non-working hours.

1
In their Fifth Cause of Action, Plaintiffs do not identify the law under which they bring their

aiding and abetting claim. (See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 245-48.) As aiding and abetting liability is available
under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, for purposes of its Motion to Dismiss, the Individual
Defendants treat this cause of action as being brought under both laws.

7 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

Plaintiffs'
While it is difficult to discern given lengthy and muddled 248-enumerated

Plaintiffs'
paragraph Complaint, it appears that the bulk of claims in fact relate to Julio E. Reyes

("Reyes"), a former Area Manager for Popular Bank, a former supervisor of Plaintiffs and several

of the Individual Defendants, and an individual who curiously is not named as a defendant in this

matter. Plaintiffs make scant mention of the Individual Defendants - out of 248 25
paragraphs,

make specific mention of the Individual Defendants. Moreover, two of the Plaintiffs fail to identify

any of the Individual Defendants within their allegations.

harasser"
Plaintiffs label Reyes as a "sexual and make the implausible claim that Reyes

"used"
and exerted control over the Individual Defendants such that they each engaged in

discriminatory and retaliatory conduct against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs further allege, in conclusory

fashion and without differentiating between Popular Bank and the Individual Defendants, that the

"defendants" favoritism."
are "guilty of illegal Plaintiffs seek to bolster their action with a kitchen

sink's-worth of allegations; however, the claims asserted against the Individual Defendants must

fail.

First, with regard to Plaintiff's discrimination and harassment claims against the Individual

Defendants, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim of discrimination and hostile work environment

harassment on account of their sex against the Individual Defendants. The conduct Plaintiffs allege

is neither severe nor pervasive as required to state a hostile work environment claim under the

NYSHRL.2
Instead, the complained of conduct constitutes no more than petty slights or trivial

inconveniences that are insufficient to state a hostile work environment claim under either the

2 Plaintiffs'
hostile work environment claims under the NYSHRL are not subject to the law's
terms"
current "inferior standard of proof for harassment claims as they accrued prior to
October 2019 - the date the current standard of proof became effective.
11,
- 2 -

8 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

NYSHRL or NYCHRL. Additionally, it is clear that the conduct Plaintiffs allege lacks the

necessary motive to assert that iteven constitutes discrimination.

Plaintiffs also failto state a legally cognizable claim of retaliation since they failto plead

that any of the Individual Defendant knew or should have known about their complaints.

Additionally, one Plaintiff altogether fails to allege any facts linking the Individual Defendants to

a protected complaint.

Third, the Complaint failsto allege any facts that could support the imposition of individual

liability upon Individual Defendants on the basis of either ownership interest in Popular Bank or

their status as its employees. Moreover, Plaintiffs wholly failto plead any facts that would justify

holding the Individual Defendants liable under an aiding and abetting theory, and Plaintiffs rely

almost exclusively on conclusory allegations that each of the Individual Defendants participated

in a general scheme of retaliation. When Plaintiffs do offer specific facts in support of their claims,

those factual allegations fail to provide any discriminatory or retaliatory motive by any of the

Individual Defendants and fallshort of describing any act by the Individual Defendants that could

be considered either an adverse employment action or would otherwise deter a reasonable person

from bringing a complaint to her employer.

Finally, Plaintiffs assert a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress ("IIED")

Plaintiffs'
against each of the Defendants. That claim, however, is duplicative of claims under the

NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. As the state and city statutory claims provide an avenue of recovery

for the emotional distress Plaintiffs allege, the stand-alone tort claim seeking those damages should

be dismissed as to all Defendants for failure to allege an independent wrong. Moreover, the IIED

pleading fails to meet the legal standard for such a claim.

Therefore, the Complaint against the Individual Defendants must be dismissed in its

entirety.

- 3 -

9 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

FACTUALBACKGROUND3

Popular Bank is a New York State chartered bank that provides a full range of banking

services for retail and commercial customers in the United States. The Individual Defendants are

each residents of the State of New York and are currently employed by Popular Bank in its Bronx

and Manhattan branches. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17, 19-20.) Plaintiffs are a group of former and current

Popular Bank employees working in New York City and residing in New York and Connecticut.

(Compl. ¶¶ 10-14.)

According to the Complaint, Plaintiffs identify several acts allegedly perpetrated by the

Individual Defendants which they claim constitute discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for

complaining about Reyes's alleged sexual harassment and allegedly being viewed as the persons

responsible for his termination. (See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 73,78, 114-15, 137, 174.) For the Court's

Plaintiffs'
convenience, a summary of total allegations against each of the Individual Defendants

is provided, below.

Defendant Becerril

• Defendant Becerril is a Branch Supervisor for Popular Bank at one of its Bronx

branches. (Compl. ¶ 16.) Becerril is married to Defendant Rahman, and that Reyes
rumors"
is the godfather to their children. (Compl. ¶ 49.) Becerril spread "vicious
about Plaintiff Betances, as well as the other Plaintiffs (Compl. ¶ 49), and Becerril

turned her head away when Plaintiff Liriano greeted her in the workplace and

during work events (Compl. ¶ 86). Becerril failed to respond to an email she sent
differently"
Becerril regarding a possible ATM fraud, and Becerril "treated her
after Reyes's June 2018 departure from Popular Bank by blocking her on

Instagram. (Compl. ¶¶ 142, 170.)

Defendant Rivera

• Defendant Rivera is a Branch Manager for Popular Bank at one of its Bronx
"puppet"
branches. (Compl. ¶ 19.) Rivera is Reyes's and "had a sexual
relationship"
with him. (Compl. ¶ 48.) After Reyes's termination from Popular
rudely"
Bank, Rivera "spoke to her when she asked about work-related concerns.

3
For purposes of this Motion, the specific allegations in the Complaint are assumed, but not

conceded, to be true.

- 4 -

10 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

(Compl. $142.) In August 2018, Rivera sent her team a text message discouraging
them from attending a barbeque that she coordinated and hosted on a Saturday.
(Compl. $$ 179.) Rivera filed an ethics complaint against her and claimed that she
was mistreating her team, prohibited her team from mentioning Reyes s name, and
refused to give Reyes his personal belongings â€” after his departure from
presumably
Popular Bank. (Compl. $ 184.)

Defendant Rahman

~ Defendant Rahman is a Financial Sales Assistant for Popular Bank at one of its
Manhattan branches. (Compl. $ 17.) Defendants Becerril and Rahman are married
and Reyes is the godfather of their child. (Compl. $49.) Rahman publicly yelled
at her and asked her to breach internal rules customer accountsâ€”
regarding
presumably sometime after Reyes's departure in June 2018. (Compl. $180.) In
"anonymous"
June 2019, Rahman filed an ethics complaint against her claiming
that she was a poor manager (Compl. $ 204) and later, in August 2018, he asked
"horrible"
one of her direct reports whether working for her was (Compl. $ 180).
Human Resources ("HR") representative conducted an investigation into Rahman's
alleged complaint and told her that that her employees in fact, had no complaints
manager."
and only said that she was a "no-nonsense (Comp1.$/205-06.)
Betances told the HR representative "that she suspects that Rahman made the false
accusations against her because he had visited her branch on June 27, 2019, the date
complaint."
that he made the false (Compl. $ 206.)

Defendant Came 0

~ Defendant Camejo is a Coordinator for Popular Bank in one of its
Marketing
Manhattan branches. (Comp1.$20.) Camejo is Reyes's girlfriend, and that she
her"
lodged "at least one bogus ethics complaint against in August 2018, without

describing more. (Compl. /$49, 176.) After Reyes s termination from Popular

Bank, Camejo failed to include her in marketing projects and bank networking
events. (Compl. $ 185.) Camejo filed another ethics complaint against her in
September or October 2018, and claimed that Betances made sexual innuendos
towards her. (Compl. $$ 182, 189.) During the same month Camejo filed an ethics

complaint, she again complained that Betances made her feel uncomfortable.
(Compl. $$ 189-90.)

The most cursory reading of these allegations (which are facially negligible in quantity and

substance) reveals that none of them states a cognizable claim against any of the Individual

Defendants.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pursuant to CPLR $ 3211(a)(7), alleged claims that fail to state a cause of action must be

dismissed. While courts generally accept allegations in a complaint as true when ruling on a

11 of 24
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/21/2019 07:50 PM INDEX NO. 157355/2019
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/21/2019

motion to dismiss, "factual allegations that do not state a viable cause of action, that consist of bare

legal conclusions, or that are inherently incredible or clearly contradicted by documentary

consideration."
evidence are not entitled to such Skillgames, LLC v. Brody, 1 A.D.3d 247, 250,767

N.Y.S.2d 418, 421 (1st Dep't 2003); see also Leder v. Spiegel, 31 A.D.3d 266, 268, 819 N.Y.S.2d

26, 28 (1st Dep't 2006) (dismissing claim based on "bare allegations of fact and conclusory legal

arguments"
pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(7)); Caniglia v. Chi. Tribune-N.Y. News Syndicate, 204

A.D.2d 233, 233, 612 N.Y.S.2d 146, 147 (1st Dep't 1994) (dismissal for failure to state a claim

affirmed). "Despite the court's deferential reading of the complaint, to survive a motion to dismiss,

a complaint must provide more than conclusory allegations or a formulaic recitation of the

action."
elements of a cause of Gold v. Lipsky, Goodkin & Co., 2012 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6387, at

*6 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Nov. 21, 2012) (complaint dismissed in its entirety).

As discussed below, the Complaint contains no specific factual allegations regarding the

conduct of the Individual Defendants, let alone any facts that could support the asserted causes of

Plaintiffs'
action. claims against the Individual Defendants are subject to dismissal on this basis

alone. Megna v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 215 A.D.2d 542, 542, 626 N.Y.S.2d 546, 546 (2d Dep't

1995) (dismissal upheld where complaint was "devoid of specific factual allegations and did not

indicate the material elements of a claim and how they would apply to the case").

ARGUMENT

I. The Individual Defendants Are Not Liable in Their Individual Capacities under the
NYSHRL or NYCHRL

Under the direct liability provision of Section 296(1) of the NYSHRL, a corporate

interest,"
supervisor or manager may be held liable if that person has "an ownership or if the

Case Info

Judge

Shlomo Hagler Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

October 21, 2019

Case Filing Date

July 26, 2019

County

Parties

Aileen Betances Plaintiff
Amber M Becerril Defendant
Ana Rodriguez Plaintiff
Ashfiqur Rahman Defendant
Awilda Liriano Plaintiff
CHASE, MONIQUE ERICA Attorney for the Defendants
Evelyn Mendez Defendant
Ileana Rivera Defendant
Lenise Santana Plaintiff
LOVINGER, BLYTHE ELISA Attorney for the Defendants
Perla Henriquez Plaintiff
Popular Bank Defendant
SCHMIDT, MICHAEL C Attorney for the Defendants
SEDHOM, RANIA VICTOR Attorney for the Plaintiff
Valerie Camejo Defendant
WEXLER, JONATHAN A. Attorney for the Defendants
YUAN, SHANZI Attorney for the Plaintiff

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: Aileen Betances, Ana Rodriguez, Awilda Liriano, Lenise Santana, Perla Henriquez v. Popular Bank, Amber M Becerril, Ashfiqur Rahman, Evelyn Mendez, Ileana Rivera, Valerie Camejo

Preview

Case Info

Parties