Marshall-Zimbal v. Harvey's Drugs of Manlius, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marshall-Zimbal v. Harvey's Drugs of Manlius, Inc.

214 A.D.2d 1038, 627 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6840

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 1995·Published

Opinion

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and amended complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary- judgment. Defendant tendered evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for failing to reinstate plaintiff at the end of her maternity leave (see, Brown v General Elec. Co., 144 AD2d 746, 748). The unsubstantiated assertions of plaintiff that defendant’s proffered reasons were merely a pretext for discrimination based upon her gender and her pregnancy-related disability are insufficient to defeat defendant’s motion (see, Brown v General Elec. Co., supra, at 748; Hill v Westchester Aeronautical Corp., 112 [1039] AD2d 977, 978). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Elliott, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and amended complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying defendant’s motion for summary- judgment. Defendant tendered evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish that it had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for failing to reinstate plaintiff at the end of her maternity leave (see, Brown v General Elec. Co., 144 AD2d 746, 748). The unsubstantiated assertions of plaintiff that defendant’s proffered reasons were merely a pretext for discrimination based upon her gender and her pregnancy-related disability are insufficient to defeat defendant’s motion (see, Brown v General Elec. Co., supra, at 748; Hill v Westchester Aeronautical Corp., 112 [1039] AD2d 977, 978). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Elliott, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Den-man, P. J., Green, Fallon, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Marshall-Zimbal v. Harvey's Drugs of Manlius, Inc., 214 A.D.2d 1038, 627 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

214 A.D.2d 1038 (Marshall-Zimbal v. Harvey's Drugs of Manlius, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related