Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Human Rights (2024 NY Slip Op 00793)
Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Human Rights
2024 NY Slip Op 00793 [41 NY3d 326]
February 15, 2024
Singas, J.
Court of Appeals
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, June 12, 2024
[*1]
In the Matter of Clifton Park Apartments, LLC, as Owner of Pine Ridge II Apartments, et al., Respondents,
v
New York State Division of Human Rights, Appellant, et al., Respondents. (And Another Related Proceeding.)
Argued January 9, 2024; decided February 15, 2024
Matter of Clifton Park Apts., LLC v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 204 AD3d 1358, reversed.
{**41 NY3d at 329} OPINION OF THE COURT
Singas, J.
The New York State Human Rights Law prohibits retaliation against those who make discrimination complaints or engage in other protected activity. We hold that a threat of litigation may constitute the requisite adverse action to support a retaliation claim and, therefore, respondent New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) rationally concluded that this element had been established here. Remittal is necessary, however, because, as the parties agree, DHR improperly shifted the burden when analyzing whether respondent CityVision Services, Inc. (CityVision) had engaged in protected activity.
I.