Skip to main content

Dougherty v. City of New York

N.Y. App. Div.January 29, 2026No. Index No. 155088/23; Appeal No. 5700; Case No. 2025-00714Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
2026 NY Slip Op 00421
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
State
Texas
Circuit
5th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Discrimination

Outcome

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's employment and housing discrimination claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, finding the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations of discrimination based on protected status.

What This Ruling Means

# Dougherty v. City of New York: Court Dismisses Discrimination Case **What Happened** An employee named Dougherty filed a discrimination lawsuit against BES Kessler Park Fund X11 LLC (doing business as Axis Kessler Park) and the City of New York. The complaint included claims of both employment and housing discrimination. **What the Court Decided** A New York court dismissed the case in January 2026. The judge ruled that Dougherty's complaint did not provide enough specific facts to prove discrimination based on a protected characteristic—such as race, gender, religion, or disability. Without these concrete details, the court found there was no valid legal claim to proceed. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case highlights an important requirement in discrimination lawsuits: workers must provide detailed factual evidence showing they were treated unfairly because of a protected characteristic. Simply stating "I was discriminated against" is not enough. To have a strong case, workers should document specific incidents, dates, and evidence showing how their protected status caused the unfair treatment. Workers facing discrimination should consult with an attorney to ensure their complaints include sufficient detail.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.