Herskowitz v. Greystone Jewish Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Herskowitz v. Greystone Jewish Center

270 A.D.2d 391, 705 N.Y.S.2d 261, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2945

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

DecidedMarch 20, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 391 (Herskowitz v. Greystone Jewish Center) 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

Herskowitz v. Greystone Jewish Center, 270 A.D.2d 391, 705 N.Y.S.2d 261, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2945 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for age discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered December 3, 1998, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Assuming that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of age discrimination, the defendants met their burden of establishing that the decision not to renew his contract was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and not his age (see, Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623; Matter of Laverack & Haines v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 NY2d 734; Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 NY2d 937; Alfano v Miller Envtl. Group, 253 AD2d 446). The plaintiff failed to raise material issues of fact as to whether the reason proffered by the defendants was pretextual (see, Ferrante v American Lung Assn., supra).

The Supreme Court also properly dismissed the plaintiffs cause of action based on retaliation as there was no reasonable basis for him to believe that the defendants engaged in any discriminatory practice prohibited by the Executive Law (see, Executive Law § 296 [1] [e]; Dodd v Middleton Lodge [Elks Club] No. 1097, 264 AD2d 706; Matter of Electchester Hous. Project v Rosa, 225 AD2d 772, 773).

Finally, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how further discovery might reveal the existence of material facts which would warrant the denial of summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [fl; Delaney v Good Samaritan Hosp., 204 AD2d 678). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, 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 age discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered December 3, 1998, as granted those branches of the defendants’ motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action in the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Assuming that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of age discrimination, the defendants met their burden of establishing that the decision not to renew his contract was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and not his age (see, Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623; Matter of Laverack & Haines v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 NY2d 734; Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 NY2d 937; Alfano v Miller Envtl. Group, 253 AD2d 446). The plaintiff failed to raise material issues of fact as to whether the reason proffered by the defendants was pretextual (see, Ferrante v American Lung Assn., supra).

The Supreme Court also properly dismissed the plaintiffs cause of action based on retaliation as there was no reasonable basis for him to believe that the defendants engaged in any discriminatory practice prohibited by the Executive Law (see, Executive Law § 296 [1] [e]; Dodd v Middleton Lodge [Elks Club] No. 1097, 264 AD2d 706; Matter of Electchester Hous. Project v Rosa, 225 AD2d 772, 773).

Finally, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how further discovery might reveal the existence of material facts which would warrant the denial of summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212 [fl; Delaney v Good Samaritan Hosp., 204 AD2d 678). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 391, 705 N.Y.S.2d 261, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herskowitz-v-greystone-jewish-center-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack