Flowers v. Stillrock Management Inc.

179 A.D.2d 361
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 7, 1992·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

[362] Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action alleging that defendants created a "confidence crisis” with her clients fails to set forth any cognizable cause of action. Further, plaintiff’s assertion that counsel for defendants advised her that defendant-appellant’s clients would be informed regarding the reasons for her termination does not state a cause of action for defamation, which requires that the particular words complained of be set forth in the complaint (CPLR 3016 [a]; Alanthus Corp. v Travelers Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 830).

Plaintiff’s seventh cause of action seeking punitive damages for sex discrimination must be dismissed for failure to set forth any fact from which it can be concluded that she was terminated due to her pregnancy. There is no basis to conclude that a death and disability provision in plaintiff’s employment agreement was applied to plaintiff, and, in any case, the subject provision is facially neutral, non-discriminatory and clearly comports with Executive Law § 296 (1) (g) (see, Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v New York State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 41 NY2d 84).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Flowers v. Stillrock Management Inc., 179 A.D.2d 361 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

179 A.D.2d 361 (Flowers v. Stillrock Management Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lively v. Wafra Inv. Advisory Group, Inc.
2022 NY Slip Op 06887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Krause v. Lancer & Loader Group, LLC
40 Misc. 3d 385 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
Dillon v. City of New York
261 A.D.2d 34 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)