Liebowitz v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liebowitz v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

288 A.D.2d 352, 734 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11256

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 352 (Liebowitz v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) 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

Liebowitz v. Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 288 A.D.2d 352, 734 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11256 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Executive Law § 296 to recover damages for gender discrimination, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated August 13, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants submitted evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff was terminated from her job because the corporate defendant suffered a financial loss when she could not be reached during an emergency while she was on vacation, and not as a result of gender discrimination (see, Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she was terminated because of her gender. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. S. Miller, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Executive Law § 296 to recover damages for gender discrimination, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.), dated August 13, 1998, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The defendants submitted evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff was terminated from her job because the corporate defendant suffered a financial loss when she could not be reached during an emergency while she was on vacation, and not as a result of gender discrimination (see, Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether she was terminated because of her gender. Therefore, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. S. Miller, J. P., Luciano, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 352, 734 N.Y.S.2d 459, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liebowitz-v-luitpold-pharmaceuticals-inc-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack