Herbert v. Kirkland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herbert v. Kirkland

90 A.D.3d 927, 934 N.Y.2d 819

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 A.D.3d 927 (Herbert v. Kirkland) 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

Herbert v. Kirkland, 90 A.D.3d 927, 934 N.Y.2d 819 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Even had the petitioner established a prima facie case of discrimination (see Matter of McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554, 558 [1994]; Koester v New York Blood Ctr., 55 AD3d 447, 448 [928]*928[2008]), substantial evidence supports the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights that the petitioner’s employer, New York Institute of Technology, had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the petitioner from its employ, and that he did not show that this reason was a pretext for discrimination (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; Matter of Sauer v Donaldson, 49 AD3d 656, 657 [2008]; Genesky v Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, CSEA, 287 AD2d 594, 595 [2001]). Mastro, A.EJ., Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Even had the petitioner established a prima facie case of discrimination (see Matter of McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554, 558 [1994]; Koester v New York Blood Ctr., 55 AD3d 447, 448 [928]*928[2008]), substantial evidence supports the determination of the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights that the petitioner’s employer, New York Institute of Technology, had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the petitioner from its employ, and that he did not show that this reason was a pretext for discrimination (see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc v State Div. of Human Rights, 45 NY2d 176, 180 [1978]; Matter of Sauer v Donaldson, 49 AD3d 656, 657 [2008]; Genesky v Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, CSEA, 287 AD2d 594, 595 [2001]). Mastro, A.EJ., Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A.D.3d 927, 934 N.Y.2d 819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbert-v-kirkland-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack