Breiding v. High Hopes Films, LLC
Docket Index No. 152385/23|Appeal No. 6515|Case No. 2025-05001|
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02773
- Docket numbers
- Index No152385/23Appeal No6515Case No2025-05001
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment in an employment discrimination action
Summary
The First Department modified a lower court order in a discrimination suit by actress Kathy Breiding against director/producer Dennis Piliere and his company. The appellate court granted defendants summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims under the pre-amendment New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), finding Piliere's comments too sporadic to constitute a permeating hostile environment and that some complained conduct was not protected activity or did not cause an adverse NYSHRL employment action. The court otherwise affirmed denial of summary judgment, leaving plaintiff's gender discrimination claims and all claims under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) to proceed based on disputed facts about pretext and disadvantageous treatment.
Issues Decided
- Whether plaintiff established a continuous practice or policy of discrimination making untimely Human Rights Law claims timely
- Whether the alleged comments and conduct by the director constituted a hostile work environment under the pre-amendment NYSHRL
- Whether plaintiff engaged in protected activity and suffered an adverse employment action for purposes of an NYSHRL retaliation claim
- Whether defendants' stated reason for terminating plaintiff was pretextual such that discrimination claims survive
Court's Reasoning
The court accepted that plaintiff showed a continuing practice of discrimination to avoid timeliness problems. But under the NYSHRL the director's sporadic coarse remarks over several years were insufficiently frequent or severe to show a work environment permeated by discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insult. The refusal to perform a scripted kiss for a health reason was not protected activity, and the complaint to the union did not lead to an adverse NYSHRL employment action; by contrast, the NYCHRL uses a lower "less well" and "disadvantaged" standard, so factual disputes on those claims and on whether termination was pretextual defeat summary judgment.
Authorities Cited
- Crawford v American Broadcasting Co., Inc.216 AD3d 507 (1st Dept 2023)
- Sedhom v SUNY Downstate Med. Ctr.201 AD3d 536 (1st Dept 2022)
- Hernandez v Kaisman103 AD3d 106 (1st Dept 2012)
- Bond v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.215 AD3d 469 (1st Dept 2023)
- Shapiro v State of New York217 AD3d 700 (2d Dept 2023)
Parties
- Plaintiff
- Kathy Breiding
- Defendant
- High Hopes Films, LLC
- Defendant
- Dennis Piliere
- Attorney
- Kevin J. Abruzzese
- Attorney
- Clela A. Errington
- Judge
- Mary V. Rosado
- Judge
- Webber, J.P.
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-05-05
- Lower court order entered
- 2025-08-09
- Original alleged incidents (filming)
- 2015-01-01
- Earlier film appearance
- 2009-01-01
- Action commenced
- 2023-01-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider further review
Defendants or plaintiff may evaluate whether to seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals or request reargument on issues of law left open by this decision.
- 2
Prepare for continued litigation on surviving claims
Parties should proceed with discovery focused on the disputed facts about alleged disadvantageous actions and pretext for termination to support or defend the remaining NYCHRL and discrimination claims.
- 3
Consult counsel about settlement
Given mixed outcomes, both sides should reassess settlement talks with updated risk assessments reflecting dismissal of some state-law claims but preservation of city-law claims.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide overall?
- The court partly reversed the lower court by dismissing some claims under the state Human Rights Law, but it left other claims — including city-law claims and gender discrimination claims — to go forward because factual disputes remain.
- Which claims were dismissed?
- Hostile work environment and retaliation claims as to the pre-amendment New York State Human Rights Law were dismissed; other NYCHRL and discrimination claims survived.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Plaintiff Kathy Breiding and defendants Dennis Piliere and High Hopes Films are directly affected; the case proceeds on city-law claims and discrimination allegations while some state-law claims were dismissed.
- What happens next in the case?
- The surviving claims remain for further litigation — likely discovery and possibly trial — unless the parties resolve the case or seek further review.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Breiding v High Hopes Films, LLC - 2026 NY Slip Op 02773 Breiding v High Hopes Films, LLC 2026 NY Slip Op 02773 May 5, 2026 Appellate Division, First Department Kathy Breiding, Plaintiff-Respondent, v High Hopes Films, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Decided and Entered: May 05, 2026 Index No. 152385/23|Appeal No. 6515|Case No. 2025-05001| Before: Webber, J.P., Moulton, Mendez, Higgitt, Michael, JJ. Kevin J. Abruzzese, Great Neck, for appellants. Goddard Law PLLC, New York (Clela A. Errington of counsel), for respondent. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Mary V. Rosado, J.), entered August 9, 2025, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims for hostile work environment and retaliation under the NYSHRL, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. In 2009 and 2015, plaintiff played the wife of defendant Dennis Piliere in two independent films produced by Piliere and his company, defendant High Hopes Films LLC. Plaintiff commenced this action in 2023, alleging that Piliere engaged in unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory conduct against her after she objected to a scripted kiss while filming in 2015. The court properly found that plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated a "continuous practice and policy of discrimination" by Piliere to render her otherwise untimely Human Rights Law claims as timely ( see Crawford v American Broadcasting Co., Inc. , 216 AD3d 507, 507 [1st Dept 2023]; see also Williams v New York City Hous. Auth. , 61 AD3d 62, 72-73, 80-81 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]). Piliere, among other things, continued to reference plaintiff's refusal to kiss him for years afterward, publicly embarrassed her at a film festival that she attended to promote the films, and sent her text messages explicitly invoking the refused kiss and criticizing her for it. However, the court should have dismissed plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims under the pre-amendment New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296). The comments made by Piliere over the course of four years, while inappropriate and often coarse, were too sporadic to show that the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult ( see Sedhom v SUNY Downstate Med. Ctr. , 201 AD3d 536, 538 [1st Dept 2022]; see also Hernandez v Kaisman , 103 AD3d 106, 114 [1st Dept 2012]). While the hostile work environment claim does not survive under the NYSHRL, this does not dispose of the question under the NYCHRL of whether plaintiff was treated "less well" based on her gender, and thus, defendants' motion for summary judgment as to that claim was properly denied ( see Hernandez , 103 AD3d at 114; see also Bond v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. , 215 AD3d 469, 469-470 [1st Dept 2023]). As for the retaliation claim, plaintiff's refusal to kiss Piliere while filming a movie in 2015 does not constitute "protected activity," because she admittedly refused to kiss him due to a "health concern" ( see e.g. Campbell v New York City Dept. of Educ. , 200 AD3d 488, 489 [1st Dept 2021]). While plaintiff's complaint of discrimination to the Screen Actors Guild constitutes protected activity, she cannot show that defendants thereafter took an adverse employment action against her within the meaning of the NYSHRL ( see Shapiro v State of New York , 217 AD3d 700, 701 [2d Dept 2023]). However, under the NYCHRL, defendants' motion for summary judgment was properly denied because there remains a question as to whether Piliere took an action that "disadvantaged" plaintiff by accusing her of sabotaging the film to others who worked on it ( see Harrington v City of New York , 157 AD3d 582, 585 [1st Dept 2018]). Furthermore, the court properly denied summary judgment on plaintiff's gender discrimination claims, as she raised a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants' stated reason for terminating her from the third film — namely, her scheduling conflicts — were pretextual ( see Crawford , 216 AD3d at 507; see also Mikesh v County of Ulster , 237 AD3d 1285, 1287-1288 [3d Dept 2025]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: May 5, 2026