BROOKLYN (CN) — A federal judge on Friday dismissed a New York state trooper’s claim of retaliation against former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, saying that the supposed retaliatory action Cuomo took against her occurred after her employment contract had already ended.
Identified only as “Trooper 1,” the plaintiff sued Cuomo and his top aides in 2022 for gender discrimination and retaliation. In the complaint, Trooper 1 claimed Cuomo initiated inappropriate conversations and physical contact during the time that she worked as part of his protective security detail.
The allegations were detailed in Attorney General Letitia James’ August 2021 report, which ultimately led to Cuomo’s resignation.
Rita Glavin, Cuomo’s attorney, condemned the plaintiff’s complaint and the preceding report from Attorney General Letitia James outlining the claims.
“While politics and a reckless media mob carried the day in 2021, truth and the rule of law will ultimately prevail,” Glavin said in a statement Friday. “We look forward to the public seeing what we’ve learned through discovery and to prevailing in court.”
The plaintiff’s retaliation claims against Cuomo centered on a reported February 2022 threat by the former governor to seek “criminal prosecution of his victims.” But U.S. District Judge La Shann DeArcy Hall said that whether the threat happened or not, it would have occurred after Cuomo had already resigned from office.
“His resignation presumably ended any employment relationship Cuomo may have had with plaintiff,” Hall, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote in her decision. “In other words, even taking plaintiff’s allegation as true, Cuomo’s employment relationship with plaintiff ceased about six months prior to Cuomo’s alleged February 10, 2022 threat.”
In her complaint, the plaintiff also named two of Cuomo’s top aides — Melissa DeRosa and Rich Azzopardi — who were dismissed from the case last year.
In her Friday decision, Hall explained that the plaintiff had failed to establish discrimination and retaliation claims against them.
The plaintiff claims that DeRosa, who served as Cuomo’s chief of staff, helped to cover up incidents of harassment, including by yelling at the editor of The Times Union for asking about Trooper 1’s transfer to Cuomo’s protective detail.
Still, Hall said that the plaintiff failed to establish that DeRosa ever witnessed any supposed firsthand conduct or was told about any supposed harassment by plaintiff or anyone else.
“Plaintiff contends that knowledge of Cuomo’s alleged harassment can be imputed onto DeRosa by virtue of her position,” Hall said. “Plaintiff asks the court to assume too much.”
Regarding the retaliation claim against DeRosa, Hall said the plaintiff had failed to establish any employment relationship between them.
Since DeRosa was hired by the governor’s office whereas the plaintiff was an officer employed by the New York State Police, Hall said that DeRosa has no employment authority against the plaintiff and was incapable of retaliating against her.
“The question is not whether DeRosa was a state employee at the time of the harassment, but rather whether there was an employment relationship between plaintiff and DeRosa at the time of the retaliation,” Hall said. “There was not.”
The plaintiff had also accused Azzopardi, Cuomo’s then-spokesperson, of posting a tweet on the day she filed her complaint that accused her and her attorneys of attempting to “extort” a settlement to make “cheap cash.” But as with DeRosa, Hall said the plaintiff had failed to establish an employment relationship between Azzopardi and herself.
“Trooper 1’s complaint was a gross abuse of the court system and a transparent attempt to weaponize the Attorney General’s sham report for her own financial gain. These efforts have failed,” DeRosa and Azzopardi said in a joint statement on Friday. “We believe that Judge Hall’s opinion demonstrates that Trooper 1’s claims were frivolous and, as such, we are considering our legal options.”