SHELLY M. WHITFIELD-ORTIZ, plf-ap, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK def-res, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, def

12264. SHELLY M. WHITFIELD-ORTIZ, plf-ap, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK def-res, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, def — Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Stewart Lee Karlin of counsel), for ap — Jeffrey D. Friedlander, Acting Corporation Counsel, New York (Jonathan A. Popolow of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered December 12, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants-respondents’ motion to dismiss the discrimination, hostile environment, and retaliation claims under the State and City Human Rights Laws (HRL) (Executive Law §290 et seq.; Administrative Code of City of NY §8-101 et seq.), and denied plaintiff’s cross motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Construing the complaint liberally, presuming its factual allegations to be true, and according it the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v. Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 151-152 [2002]), plaintiff failed to adequately plead that she was subjected to an adverse employment action (see Melman v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 98 AD3d 107, 113 [1st Dept 2012]). Indeed, none of the allegations listed in the complaint rises to the level of an actionable adverse employment action (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 306-307 [2004]). Accordingly, the motion court properly dismissed her discrimination claims.