The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION This action arises out of plaintiff Michael Spiegel’s claims that his employer, defendants 226 Realty LLC d/b/a 226 Realty Company, LLC, 228 Hotel Corp. d/b/a/ Hotel Edison, 47th Street Management Co., LLC, d/b/a Hotel Edison, Edison Management Company, LLC d/b/a Hotel Edison (collectively, Hotel Edison, or Hotel)1, as well as John Canavan (Canavan), Thomas Wengelewski (Wengelewski) and Katarina Sefrankova (Sefrankova) (collectively, defendants), acted unlawfully by discriminating and retaliating against him, both prior to and after his termination, in violation of the New York Labor Law (Labor Law) §740, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Defendants move, pursuant to CPLR 3212, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint (AC). For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is granted and the AC is dismissed. BACKGROUND AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS In 2006, plaintiff, who is 65 years old, commenced his employment as a front desk agent with Hotel Edison, located at 228 West 47th Street, New York, New York. Plaintiff subsequently became a member of the New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council (Trades Council), the hotel union. During all relevant times, Canavan was Hotel Edison’s general manager and Sefrankova was the front desk manager. Wengelewski was the director of human resources until December 2011, when he became the director of operations. Plaintiff was terminated on August 10, 2012. According to plaintiff, he was unlawfully terminated in retaliation for reporting safety violations to his supervisors. Furthermore, he was allegedly discriminated against on the basis of his age, in violation of the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. The relevant facts are as follows: Labor Law §740 The AC states that, in June 2010, plaintiff complained to Canavan and Sefrankova “about the fact that there were large hallway windows on guest floors…which did not have protective bars and which were being left wide open by hotel staff for extended periods of time” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 61, 21). The lack of window guards allegedly posed a danger to public safety in violation of Administrative Code of the City of New York (Administrative Code) §27-2043.1. Although plaintiff was advised to “stay out of it,” he continued to complain throughout 2010 and 2011 about the lack of window guards. Id., 26. The AC also indicates that, in August 2010, plaintiff complained to his supervisors that the basement corridors posed a danger to public safety in violation of Administrative Code §27-370. According to plaintiff, the basement corridors were “lined with large industrial bins containing garbage and trash,” and also had barrels of used oil disposed by the restaurants located in Hotel Edison. Id., 29. Hotel Edison employees were required to enter and exit the hotel using these basement corridors. Plaintiff alleges that Hotel Edison, “led by Canavan and Sefrankova,” retaliated against him by terminating him for an alleged theft of hotel property after he had exchanged and purchased foreign currency from a hotel guest. Plaintiff, through his union, challenged the termination. On April 6, 2011, the parties attended an arbitration. Pursuant to a decision dated April 14, 2011, the arbitrator found in favor of plaintiff and he was reinstated with back pay. According to plaintiff, “Canavan and Sefrankova continued to retaliate against [him].” Id., 41. In July 2011, plaintiff was terminated again for allegedly harassing a co-worker. The matter went to arbitration and the arbitrator found that the hotel did not have just cause to terminate plaintiff. Plaintiff was again reinstated with full back pay and benefits and a prior written warning was expunged. The AC sets forth that, despite his “success at two separate arbitration hearings, Defendants continued to retaliate against him.” Id., 47. In July 2012, the hotel installed changing rooms and bathrooms in the basement for use by its employees. In August 2012, plaintiff complained to Wengelewski and Thomas Chestaro, Head of Security, about the lack of permits for construction in this area. Wengelewski subsequently brought in the hotel’s designated Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) safety director. Plaintiff “questioned him about the fire hazards in the basement corridors,” and complained to him about the lack of permits. Id., 53. Plaintiff also “complained to management that there were no permits for renovations being performed on guest floors,” allegedly, in violation of Administrative Code §28-105.1. Id.,
