King v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

85 A.D.3d 631, 925 N.Y.S.2d 820

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

DecidedJune 23, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 85 A.D.3d 631 (King v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.) 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

King v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 85 A.D.3d 631, 925 N.Y.S.2d 820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered on or about May 3, 2010, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs failure to cite “any law, rule, regulation or declaratory ruling adopted pursuant to law” (Labor Law § 741 [1] [d]), which she, “in good faith, reasonably believe[d]” (Labor Law § 741 [2] [a]) to have been violated, is fatal to her cause of action alleging retaliation (see Deshpande v Medisys Health Network, Inc., 70 AD3d 760, 762 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 713 [2010]; see also Pipia v Nassau County, 34 AD3d 664, 666 [2006]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered on or about May 3, 2010, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs failure to cite “any law, rule, regulation or declaratory ruling adopted pursuant to law” (Labor Law § 741 [1] [d]), which she, “in good faith, reasonably believe[d]” (Labor Law § 741 [2] [a]) to have been violated, is fatal to her cause of action alleging retaliation (see Deshpande v Medisys Health Network, Inc., 70 AD3d 760, 762 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 713 [2010]; see also Pipia v Nassau County, 34 AD3d 664, 666 [2006]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

85 A.D.3d 631, 925 N.Y.S.2d 820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-new-york-city-health-hospitals-corp-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack