
    Elzbieta GODLEWSKA, Krystyna Bielawska, Barbara Hatala, Barbara Pilch, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Boleslaw Pryzgoda, Appellant, v. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., aka HDA, Yechila Gruenwald, individually and as Executive Director of HDA, aka Yechiel Gruenwald, ZVI Kestenbaum, Marina Voskoboyniko, Golda Pokhis, aka Olga Pokhis, Margararita Zilbert, Jane Doe, aka Friedman, Jane Doe, 1-10, John Doe, 1-10, being fictitious names, their true identities not yet known to the Plaintiffs, City of New York Human Resources Administration, City of New York, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-352-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 8, 2014.
    Robert Wisniewski, Robert Wisniewski P.C., New York, NY, for Appellants.
    Benjamin Welikson, Assistant Corporation Counsel (Andrea O’Connor, Francis F. Caputo, on the brief), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: RICHARD C. WESLEY, SUSAN L. CARNEY, Circuit Judges, Richard K. Eaton, Judge.
    
    
      
       Judge Richard K. Eaton, of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

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.  