Practice point: The Appellate Division determined that, because the alleged conduct occurred while plaintiff was physically
situated outside of New York, none of her concrete allegations of
harassing behavior or other discriminatory conduct had the impact
plaintiff in New York required to support claims under the State and
City Human Rights Laws. Plaintiff's Human Rights Law claims were dismissed for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, since the statutes do not apply to
the conduct at issue, pursuant to CPLR 3211[a][2]
Student note: The Appellate Division rejected plaintiff's argument that, because she filed New York State
nonresident income tax returns and paid income taxes here, she is
entitled to the protections, benefits and values of New York
government, including the State and City Human Rights Laws. Whether New York courts have subject
matter jurisdiction over a nonresident plaintiff's claims under those statutes turns primarily on her physical location at the time of the alleged
discriminatory acts, and not on her taxpayer status.
Case: Benham v. eCommission Solutions, LLC, NY Slip Op 04695 (1st Dept. 2014)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: The traverse hearing officer's determination is reversed.
