FRIEDMAN
Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C., New York (Anthony P. Malecki of counsel), for appellant. Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, New York (Barbara V. Cusumano of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SAXE, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, GISCHE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered May 23, 2014, which denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint to add a claim for retaliation under Labor Law § 215, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint because the proposed retaliation claim is insufficient ( see Bishop v. Maurer, 83 A.D.3d 483, 485, 921 N.Y.S.2d 224 [1st Dept.2011] ). As we have previously noted, “It is the rare case that the filing of a counterclaim can serve as the basis for a retaliation claim” (Klein v. Town & Country Fine Jewelry Group, 283 A.D.2d 368, 369, 725 N.Y.S.2d 42 [1st Dept.2001] ). There is nothing to indicate that the interposition of defendant's counterclaims in any way chilled plaintiff's exercise of his rights ( id.). Plaintiff's contention that Klein is distinguishable because it involved discrimination rather than the Labor Law is unavailing. The cases cited by plaintiff state that the retaliation analysis under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), an antidiscrimination statute, applies to the Labor Law ( see Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 628 F.Supp.2d 447, 471–472 nn. 18–19 [S.D.N.Y.2008] ); Fei v. WestLB AG, 2008 WL 594768, *2 n. 2, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16338, *6–7 n. 2 [S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2008, No. 07CV8785(HB)(FM) ] ).
In addition, defendant's interposition of what appear to be valid counterclaims would not dissuade a reasonable worker from suing his or her employer for violating the Labor Law ( see Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68–69, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 [2006] ).
Finally, plaintiff's proposed retaliation claim is insufficient because it contains no factual allegations that “sufficiently suggest that [defendant]'s counterclaims could have a direct, adverse impact on [plaintiff]'s present employment or future employment prospects” ( Kreinik v. Showbran Photo, Inc., 2003 WL 22339268, *7, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18276, *23 [S.D.N.Y., Oct. 14, 2003, No. 02Civ.1172(RMB)(DF) ] ).