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

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

DecidedApril 29, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 711 (Guzman v. Lorenc) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 711, 741 N.Y.S.2d 424, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guzman-v-lorenc-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack