Espinosa v. Delgado Travel Agency, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Espinosa v. Delgado Travel Agency, Inc.

55 A.D.3d 456, 865 N.Y.S.2d 594

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 456 (Espinosa v. Delgado Travel Agency, 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

Espinosa v. Delgado Travel Agency, Inc., 55 A.D.3d 456, 865 N.Y.S.2d 594 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered November 16, 2007, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction requiring defendant to circulate to its employees certain provisions of a pretrial settlement agreement, and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action without prejudice to plaintiffs to renew in the event defendant failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, unanimously modified, on the law, the cross motion denied and the amended complaint reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction requiring defendant to include in its antidiscrimination policy paragraph 7 (c)-(e) of the settlement agreement, since a plain reading of paragraph 7 (a)-(e) establishes that only the document containing antidiscrimination policies and procedures as described in paragraph 7 (a) was to be circulated to defendant’s employees.

In view of the inclusion of the amended complaint in the order’s recitation of the papers considered on the motions, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should have been denied. The amended complaint alleges that, at a meeting held shortly after the agreement was executed, defendant’s president warned employees against bringing complaints of sexual harassment and told them he would prevail in any such action as he had prevailed in plaintiffs’ federal action—which in fact was discontinued pursuant to the agreement. Since the agreement requires defendant to draft, disseminate and enforce a written policy prohibiting discrimination, including sexual harassment and discrimination based on gender or pregnancy, and to provide its representatives with appropriate training concerning the policy, the amended complaint adequately pleads a cause of action for breach of the agreement (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Morrison v Filmways, Inc., 25 AD2d 837 [1966]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and Freedman, JJ. (See 2007 NY Slip Op 32937(11).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered November 16, 2007, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction requiring defendant to circulate to its employees certain provisions of a pretrial settlement agreement, and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action without prejudice to plaintiffs to renew in the event defendant failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, unanimously modified, on the law, the cross motion denied and the amended complaint reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction requiring defendant to include in its antidiscrimination policy paragraph 7 (c)-(e) of the settlement agreement, since a plain reading of paragraph 7 (a)-(e) establishes that only the document containing antidiscrimination policies and procedures as described in paragraph 7 (a) was to be circulated to defendant’s employees.

In view of the inclusion of the amended complaint in the order’s recitation of the papers considered on the motions, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action should have been denied. The amended complaint alleges that, at a meeting held shortly after the agreement was executed, defendant’s president warned employees against bringing complaints of sexual harassment and told them he would prevail in any such action as he had prevailed in plaintiffs’ federal action—which in fact was discontinued pursuant to the agreement. Since the agreement requires defendant to draft, disseminate and enforce a written policy prohibiting discrimination, including sexual harassment and discrimination based on gender or pregnancy, and to provide its representatives with appropriate training concerning the policy, the amended complaint adequately pleads a cause of action for breach of the agreement (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Morrison v Filmways, Inc., 25 AD2d 837 [1966]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli, Buckley and Freedman, JJ. (See 2007 NY Slip Op 32937(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 456, 865 N.Y.S.2d 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/espinosa-v-delgado-travel-agency-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack