Almanzar v. Collegiate Church Corp.

255 A.D.2d 230, 681 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12445
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 19, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 230 (Almanzar v. Collegiate Church Corp.) 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
Almanzar v. Collegiate Church Corp., 255 A.D.2d 230, 681 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12445 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered December 15, 1997, which, in an action for employment discrimination on the basis of age, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Assuming that plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case, defendant demonstrated that its decision to terminate plaintiff was based on legitimate, independent and nondiscriminatory reasons (see, Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629), and, since plaintiff’s response failed “to raise a question of fact concerning either the falsity of defendant’s proffered basis for the termination or that discrimination was more likely the real reason”, summary judgment was properly granted (supra, at 631). We agree with the IAS Court that the deposition testimony of plaintiff’s friend and co-worker that their supervisor told him, a week after plaintiff was terminated, that the supervisor was “going to try to get somebody younger to work that job” raised merely an isolated and ambiguous statement insufficient to support a finding of age discrimination (see, Melnyk v Adria Labs., 799 F Supp 301, 319). The coworker acknowledged that the supervisor did not disclose to him the reasons why plaintiff was terminated, and the specific remark did not directly state or imply that plaintiff was terminated for a discriminatory reason. We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them to be unpersuasive. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Peterkin v. Episcopal Social Services of New York, Inc.
24 A.D.3d 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Green v. Citibank, N.A.
299 A.D.2d 182 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Reynolds v. Travelers, Inc. (the Travelers)
261 A.D.2d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 A.D.2d 230, 681 N.Y.S.2d 240, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almanzar-v-collegiate-church-corp-nyappdiv-1998.