Fighter v. Egan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fighter v. Egan

223 A.D.2d 516, 637 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 709

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 516 (Fighter v. Egan) 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

Fighter v. Egan, 223 A.D.2d 516, 637 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about January 30, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent’s determination terminating petitioner’s probationary employment as Civil Engineer III, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case of either age discrimination or retaliation. In any event, respondents’ contemporaneous, documentary evidence of petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance in the probationary title rebutted the purported evidence of bad faith, and sufficed to establish as a matter of law that petitioner’s demotion was in good faith (see, Matter of Cohen v Koehler, 82 NY2d 882; Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649). We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered on or about January 30, 1995, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78 seeking to annul respondent’s determination terminating petitioner’s probationary employment as Civil Engineer III, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case of either age discrimination or retaliation. In any event, respondents’ contemporaneous, documentary evidence of petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance in the probationary title rebutted the purported evidence of bad faith, and sufficed to establish as a matter of law that petitioner’s demotion was in good faith (see, Matter of Cohen v Koehler, 82 NY2d 882; Matter of Johnson v Katz, 68 NY2d 649). We have considered petitioner’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 516, 637 N.Y.S.2d 925, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fighter-v-egan-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack