Dolgon v. Standard Motor Products, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dolgon v. Standard Motor Products, Inc.

251 A.D.2d 281, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6360

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

DecidedJune 1, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 281 (Dolgon v. Standard Motor Products, 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

Dolgon v. Standard Motor Products, Inc., 251 A.D.2d 281, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action pursuant to Executive Law § 296, inter alia, to recover damages for age discrimination, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated July 3, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

[282]*282There are triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was replaced by a younger person and whether the reason advanced by the defendants for his discharge was, in fact, a pretext (see, Mayer v Manton Cork Corp., 126 AD2d 526). Thus, the defendants did not establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action pursuant to Executive Law § 296, inter alia, to recover damages for age discrimination, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated July 3, 1997, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

[282]*282There are triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was replaced by a younger person and whether the reason advanced by the defendants for his discharge was, in fact, a pretext (see, Mayer v Manton Cork Corp., 126 AD2d 526). Thus, the defendants did not establish their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. O’Brien, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 281, 671 N.Y.S.2d 1023, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dolgon-v-standard-motor-products-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack