Guzman v. Lorenc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Guzman v. Lorenc

293 A.D.2d 711, 741 N.Y.S.2d 424, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4132

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 29, 2002·Published

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for discriminatory discharge from employment pursuant to, among other provisions, Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated March 9, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s wife could not be counted as a person in his employ for the purposes of bringing him within the definition of an “employer” under Executive Law § 292 (5) or Administrative Code of City of New York § 8-102 (5) (see DeStefano v Kopelman, 265 AD2d 446; Germakian v Kenny Intl. Corp., 151 AD2d 342; State Div. of Human Rights v GTE Corp., 109 AD2d 1082). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for discriminatory discharge from employment pursuant to, among other provisions, Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated March 9, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s wife could not be counted as a person in his employ for the purposes of bringing him within the definition of an “employer” under Executive Law § 292 (5) or Administrative Code of City of New York § 8-102 (5) (see DeStefano v Kopelman, 265 AD2d 446; Germakian v Kenny Intl. Corp., 151 AD2d 342; State Div. of Human Rights v GTE Corp., 109 AD2d 1082). Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Guzman v. Lorenc, 293 A.D.2d 711, 741 N.Y.S.2d 424, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4132 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

293 A.D.2d 711 (Guzman v. Lorenc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related