Harty v. Pepcom Industries

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harty v. Pepcom Industries

262 A.D.2d 357, 689 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6317

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

DecidedJune 7, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 357 (Harty v. Pepcom Industries) 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

Harty v. Pepcom Industries, 262 A.D.2d 357, 689 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for sexual discrimination, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated April 2, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There are issues of fact as to whether the reasons put forth by the defendant for its decision to terminate the plaintiffs employment were, in fact, “ ‘not its true reasons, but a pretext for discrimination’ ” (Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 NY2d 937, 939, quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248, 253; see also, Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v County of Onondaga Sheriff’s Dept., 71 NY2d 623). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for sexual discrimination, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.), dated April 2, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

There are issues of fact as to whether the reasons put forth by the defendant for its decision to terminate the plaintiffs employment were, in fact, “ ‘not its true reasons, but a pretext for discrimination’ ” (Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 NY2d 937, 939, quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v Burdine, 450 US 248, 253; see also, Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v County of Onondaga Sheriff’s Dept., 71 NY2d 623). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see generally, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Altman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 357, 689 N.Y.S.2d 664, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harty-v-pepcom-industries-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack