Benjamin v. Health & Hospitals Corp.

Second Circuit

Benjamin v. Health & Hospitals Corp.

394 F. App'x 829

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedOctober 4, 2010

Docket09-3962-cv

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 394 F. App'x 829 (Benjamin v. Health & Hospitals Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benjamin v. Health & Hospitals Corp., 394 F. App'x 829 (2d Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Leslie-Ann Benjamin appeals from the District Court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing her employment discrimination action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 570 F.3d 513, 517 (2d Cir.2009). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought,” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (quotation marks omitted), but “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the judgment below for substantially the same reasons stated by the District Court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. We have considered Benjamin’s arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Leslie-Ann Benjamin appeals from the District Court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing her employment discrimination action. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of appellate issues and hold as follows.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and ask whether the district court properly concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 570 F.3d 513, 517 (2d Cir.2009). In determining whether there are genuine issues of material fact, we are “required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought,” Terry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (quotation marks omitted), but “conclusory statements or mere allegations [are] not sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion.” Davis v. New York, 316 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir.2002).

Having conducted a de novo review of the record in light of these principles, we affirm the judgment below for substantially the same reasons stated by the District Court in its thorough and well-reasoned decision. We have considered Benjamin’s arguments on appeal and have found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

394 F. App'x 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benjamin-v-health-hospitals-corp-ca2-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack