Abadir v. Abadir

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Abadir v. Abadir

262 A.D.2d 509, 692 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7067

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 21, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 509 (Abadir v. Abadir) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abadir v. Abadir, 262 A.D.2d 509, 692 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7067 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for defamation and violation of Labor Law § 740, the defendant Central Queens Day Surgical Center Corp. d/b/a Surgi-Center appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated August 31, 1998, as denied that branch of its [510]*510motion which was to dismiss the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 740 insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There exists a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the plaintiff’s employment with the appellant was terminated in retaliation for his disclosing, or threatening to disclose, to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that was in violation of the Department of Health Code Rules and Regulations (see, Bordell v General Elec. Co., 88 NY2d 869). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for defamation and violation of Labor Law § 740, the defendant Central Queens Day Surgical Center Corp. d/b/a Surgi-Center appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.), dated August 31, 1998, as denied that branch of its [510]*510motion which was to dismiss the cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 740 insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

There exists a triable issue of fact (see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the plaintiff’s employment with the appellant was terminated in retaliation for his disclosing, or threatening to disclose, to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that was in violation of the Department of Health Code Rules and Regulations (see, Bordell v General Elec. Co., 88 NY2d 869). O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 509, 692 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7067, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abadir-v-abadir-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack