Plaintiff's causes of action for discrimination based on sexual orientation is viable under the City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8-107), which prohibits such discrimination, but is not viable under the State Human Rights Law, which does not prohibit such discrimination ( see, Tester v. City of New York, 1997 U.S. Dist LEXIS 1937, * 23-24 [SD N Y, Feb. 25, 1997, McKenna, J.]). Plaintiff's claims for discrimination based on ethnic origin are viable under both statutes, and were properly sustained in view of the evidence of persistent verbal abuse.
As a matter of law, the ethnic epithet and the disparaging references to plaintiff's hair in the cartoons identified as plaintiff's exhibits 3, 5 and 8, while vulgar and reprehensible, are not susceptible of a defamatory meaning ( see, O'Loughlin v. Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn., 178 A.D.2d 117; Weiner v. Double-day Co., 142 A.D.2d 100, 104-105, affd on other grounds 74 N.Y.2d 586, cert denied 495 U.S. 930). However, the cartoons depicting plaintiff as a homosexual, or implying such, are defamatory per se ( see, Dally v. Orange County Publs., 117 A.D.2d 577, 578), and are not protected merely because they appear in the form of parody or caricature ( see, Triggs v. Sun Print. Publ. Assn., 179 N.Y. 144, 155; Frank v. National Broadcasting Co., 119 A.D.2d 252). Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages in connection with his causes of action under the City Human Rights Law ( see, Walsh v. Covenant House, 244 A.D.2d 214), and for defamation ( see, Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications, 82 N.Y.2d 466, 480), are viable. We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them unpersuasive.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.