Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore

245 A.D.2d 180, 665 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13135

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 180 (Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore) 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

Chawla v. Cravath, Swaine & Moore, 245 A.D.2d 180, 665 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13135 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered September 13, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In employment discrimination cases, a plaintiff employee has the initial burden to show a prima facie case (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792; Landwehr v Grey Adv., 211 AD2d 583). Plaintiff herein has not shown any inference of prohibited discrimination (see, Citibank v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 227 AD2d 322, 323-324, lv denied 88 NY2d 815). Even if plaintiff had met his initial burden, defendant has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination (see, Scott v Citicorp Servs., 236 AD2d 227, lv granted 89 NY2d 817), and plaintiff did not demonstrate that the articulated reason was merely a pretext for discrimination (see, Matter of National Basketball Assn. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 115 AD2d 365, 367, affd 68 NY2d 644). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered September 13, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In employment discrimination cases, a plaintiff employee has the initial burden to show a prima facie case (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792; Landwehr v Grey Adv., 211 AD2d 583). Plaintiff herein has not shown any inference of prohibited discrimination (see, Citibank v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 227 AD2d 322, 323-324, lv denied 88 NY2d 815). Even if plaintiff had met his initial burden, defendant has articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the termination (see, Scott v Citicorp Servs., 236 AD2d 227, lv granted 89 NY2d 817), and plaintiff did not demonstrate that the articulated reason was merely a pretext for discrimination (see, Matter of National Basketball Assn. v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 115 AD2d 365, 367, affd 68 NY2d 644). We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 180, 665 N.Y.S.2d 897, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13135, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chawla-v-cravath-swaine-moore-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack