Berliner v. Peerless Importers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berliner v. Peerless Importers, Inc.

8 A.D.3d 157, 778 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660

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

DecidedJune 22, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 157 (Berliner v. Peerless Importers, Inc.) 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

Berliner v. Peerless Importers, Inc., 8 A.D.3d 157, 778 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[158]*158Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered September 19, 2003, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant Peerless Importers, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant employer met its burden of rebutting plaintiffs’ prima facie case of age discrimination by showing that there were legitimate business reasons behind the corporate reorganization that adversely affected plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, in responding to defendant’s showing, failed to make the demonstration necessary to sustain the action, that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the reason proffered by defendant was likely a pretext for illegal discrimination (see Scott v Citicorp Servs., 91 NY2d 823 [1997]; Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629 [1997]; DeMay v Miller & Wrubel, 262 AD2d 184 [1999]). Plaintiffs’ claim that the court should have denied the motion for summary judgment on the ground that defendant failed to provide requested discovery is without merit since plaintiffs made no showing that the documents sought contained facts “essential to justify opposition” to the motion (cf. Colicchio v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 246 AD2d 464, 465 [1998]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[158]*158Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered September 19, 2003, which, inter alia, granted the motion of defendant Peerless Importers, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant employer met its burden of rebutting plaintiffs’ prima facie case of age discrimination by showing that there were legitimate business reasons behind the corporate reorganization that adversely affected plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, in responding to defendant’s showing, failed to make the demonstration necessary to sustain the action, that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the reason proffered by defendant was likely a pretext for illegal discrimination (see Scott v Citicorp Servs., 91 NY2d 823 [1997]; Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629 [1997]; DeMay v Miller & Wrubel, 262 AD2d 184 [1999]). Plaintiffs’ claim that the court should have denied the motion for summary judgment on the ground that defendant failed to provide requested discovery is without merit since plaintiffs made no showing that the documents sought contained facts “essential to justify opposition” to the motion (cf. Colicchio v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 246 AD2d 464, 465 [1998]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 157, 778 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berliner-v-peerless-importers-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack