Fleury v. Bloom FCA!, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fleury v. Bloom FCA!, Inc.

250 A.D.2d 553, 672 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6137

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

DecidedMay 28, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 553 (Fleury v. Bloom FCA!, 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

Fleury v. Bloom FCA!, Inc., 250 A.D.2d 553, 672 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered December 17, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence that the reason articulated by defendant for discharging plaintiff, namely, that his work had deteriorated to such an extent that it became necessary to remove him from many of his projects, leaving him with no work and therefore no need for his employ, was not its true reason but a pretext for discrimination (see, Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248, 252-253; Matter of National Basketball Assn, v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 115 AD2d 365, 367, affd 68 NY2d 644). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, 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 December 17, 1996, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed on the ground that plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence that the reason articulated by defendant for discharging plaintiff, namely, that his work had deteriorated to such an extent that it became necessary to remove him from many of his projects, leaving him with no work and therefore no need for his employ, was not its true reason but a pretext for discrimination (see, Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248, 252-253; Matter of National Basketball Assn, v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 115 AD2d 365, 367, affd 68 NY2d 644). Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 553, 672 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleury-v-bloom-fca-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack