Birk v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Birk v. New York City Transit Authority

304 A.D.2d 319, 756 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414

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

DecidedApril 1, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 319 (Birk v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Birk v. New York City Transit Authority, 304 A.D.2d 319, 756 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint, alleging that plaintiff was subjected to impermissible workplace discrimination by reason of a medical disability, was properly dismissed since defendant employer set forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the alleged adverse employment action and plaintiff did not, in response, meet his burden to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant’s proffered reason was a mere pretext (see Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 630-631 [1997]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered on or about December 14, 2001, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The complaint, alleging that plaintiff was subjected to impermissible workplace discrimination by reason of a medical disability, was properly dismissed since defendant employer set forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the alleged adverse employment action and plaintiff did not, in response, meet his burden to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant’s proffered reason was a mere pretext (see Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 630-631 [1997]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Sullivan, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 319, 756 N.Y.S.2d 745, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birk-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack