Matias v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matias v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital

137 A.D.3d 649, 26 N.Y.S.3d 859

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

DecidedMarch 24, 2016

Docket607 151424/13

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 137 A.D.3d 649 (Matias v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital) 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

Matias v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital, 137 A.D.3d 649, 26 N.Y.S.3d 859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*650 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered September 30, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that defendants were motivated by discriminatory animus in subjecting her to adverse treatment, including repeated suspensions, an essential element of her claims for national-origin-based employment discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (see Askin v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2013]; Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 AD3d 29, 46 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 811 [2012]). The absence of any evidence of discriminatory animus is equally fatal to any claim of mixed motive (see Bennett at 40).

There is no evidence that plaintiff ever engaged in any “protected activity” for purposes of her retaliation claims (Fruchtman v City of New York, 129 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

*650 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered September 30, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that defendants were motivated by discriminatory animus in subjecting her to adverse treatment, including repeated suspensions, an essential element of her claims for national-origin-based employment discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (see Askin v Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 AD3d 621 [1st Dept 2013]; Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 AD3d 29, 46 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 811 [2012]). The absence of any evidence of discriminatory animus is equally fatal to any claim of mixed motive (see Bennett at 40).

There is no evidence that plaintiff ever engaged in any “protected activity” for purposes of her retaliation claims (Fruchtman v City of New York, 129 AD3d 500, 501 [1st Dept 2015]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 649, 26 N.Y.S.3d 859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matias-v-new-york-presbyterian-hospital-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack