UMANSKY v. MASTERPIECE INTERNATIONAL

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar appealed from, with costs.

The Administrative Code of the City of New York (hereinafter the Code) clearly states that a person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice, which includes discharging an employee because of a disability, can bring a cause of action alleging unlawful discrimination with punitive damages as a remedy (see, Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-502). Even though the Court of Appeals has determined that such recovery is not available under the New York State Human Rights Laws (see, Thoreson v. Penthouse Int., 80 N.Y.2d 490), a city still retains the authority to give a plaintiff the ability to bring a cause of action alleging unlawful discrimination with punitive damages as a remedy (see, Hirschfeld v. Institutional Investor, 208 A.D.2d 380; Bracker v. Cohen, 204 A.D.2d 115). The Code does not set forth the proof that is necessary for a plaintiff to recover punitive damages . However, when local civil rights laws are silent with regard to legal standards, the courts tend to follow the guidelines established under Federal law (see, Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623). To recover punitive damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or reckless indifference to the Federally-protected rights of an aggrieved individual (see, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a[b][1]). Malice or reckless indifference has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as pertaining to the employer's knowledge that it may be acting in violation of Federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination (see, Kolstad v. Am. Dental Assoc., 527 U.S. 526). In applying this standard, the plaintiff offered evidence that raised a question of fact as to whether the defendants deliberately discharged her knowing that such discharge was in violation of City law (see, Kolstad v. Am. Dental Assoc., supra; Connolly v. Biderman Indust. U.S.A., 56 F. Supp.2d 360). Thus, the Supreme Court properly reinstated the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.