RICHARD C. WESLEY
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 8 day of April, two thousand fourteen. PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY,
SUSAN L. CARNEY,
Circuit Judges,
RICHARD K. EATON,
Judge. FOR APPELLANTS:
Judge Richard K. Eaton, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
ROBERT WISnNIEWSKI, Robert Wisniewski P.C., New
York, NY.
FOR APPELLEES:
BENJAMIN WELIKSON, Assistant Corporation
Counsel (Andrea O'Connor, Francis F. Caputo, on
the brief), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel,
New York, NY.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joan M. Azrack, Magistrate Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be and hereby is AFFIRMED.
Appellants challenge an order and judgment by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Azrack, U.S.M.J.) finding the New York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA") and the City of New York (collectively, "Municipal Defendants") not to be Appellants' joint employer and accordingly granting Appellees' cross-motion for summary judgment on that issue. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
Having reviewed the factors set forth in Carter v. Dutchess Community College, 735 F.2d 8, 12 (2d Cir. 1984), and Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co., 355 F.3d 61, 72 (2d Cir. 2003), as useful for assessing the economic reality of a putative employment relationship, we find based on these factors and the totality of the circumstances that there is not an employment relationship between the Appellants and the Municipal Defendants.
For this reason the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk