A New York appellate court has dismissed a sexual harassment claim against Manhattan Place Condominium (MPC) in a case involving former employee Yevgeniya Khatskevich. The ruling, issued on June 9, 2026, by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, has significant implications for workplace harassment claims under the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL).

The case highlights the complexities surrounding employer liability in sexual harassment claims, particularly in situations where the alleged harasser is a high-ranking official within the organization.

In this case, Khatskevich alleged that Adam Victor, who served as the president of MPC's Board of Managers from 2000 to 2019, sexually harassed her while she worked as his administrative assistant. The court's decision affects not only Khatskevich but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.

Background

The dispute began when Khatskevich filed a lawsuit against Victor and MPC in February 2014. She claimed sexual harassment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting sexual harassment under the City HRL. Initially, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint against MPC, stating that there was no evidence proving that MPC was Khatskevich's employer.

However, the case took a turn when Khatskevich's legal team sought to reargue the motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court later found that while there was no question that MPC was not her employer, there was a potential issue regarding whether Victor's actions could be attributed to MPC, given his position within the organization.

The legal arguments presented in this case revolve around the definitions of employer and employee relationships under the City HRL. The court had to consider whether MPC could be held liable for Victor's alleged misconduct based on his role as an agent of the company.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division ultimately ruled in favor of MPC, reversing the lower court's decision. The court stated, "The sexual harassment cause of action should have been dismissed as against MPC regardless of whether Victor was MPC's agent." This ruling emphasizes that simply being an agent of a company does not automatically make the company liable for the agent's actions.

The judges involved in this decision included Justices Friedman, Pitt-Burke, Rosado, and Michael. They reiterated that there were no factual issues regarding Khatskevich's employment status with MPC, which was a critical element in determining liability. The court concluded that without establishing an employer-employee relationship, there could be no imputation of liability to MPC for Victor's alleged harassment.

Impact

This ruling has far-reaching implications for workplace harassment cases in New York City. It clarifies that for an employer to be held liable under the City HRL for the actions of an employee or agent, there must be a clear employer-employee relationship. This decision may discourage some victims from pursuing claims against organizations if they cannot establish that the alleged harasser was their employer.

Additionally, the court's ruling reinforces the importance of understanding the nuances of agency relationships in employment law. Employers may find some reassurance in this decision, as it delineates the limits of liability in cases involving sexual harassment claims.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals. However, given the nature of the case, it is possible that Khatskevich may seek further legal recourse. There are currently no related cases pending that were mentioned in the court's opinion.