McBride v. General Railway Signal Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McBride v. General Railway Signal Co.

96 A.D.2d 1145, 467 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19832

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 1145 (McBride v. General Railway Signal Co.) 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

McBride v. General Railway Signal Co., 96 A.D.2d 1145, 467 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment in an action brought under section 296 of the Executive Law. The defendant discharged the plaintiff after she failed to return to work following her lunch hour. In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against based upon her sex because she was discharged when she refused to continue a “personal relationship” with her immediate supervisor. Summary judgment should have been granted dismissing the complaint. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to allege and prove that the plaintiff’s employer “knew of or condoned the discriminatory conduct by [plaintiff’s immediate supervisor].” (Matter of State Univ. of N. Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 81 AD2d 688, 689, affd for reasons stated by App Div 55 NY2d 896; see, also, Hart v Sullivan, 84 AD2d 865, affd for reasons stated by App Div 55 NY2d 1011.) In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted affidavits showing that it had no knowledge of any discriminatory acts by plaintiff’s supervisor. Plaintiff, in opposition, has submitted no evidence to the contrary. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Smith, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment in an action brought under section 296 of the Executive Law. The defendant discharged the plaintiff after she failed to return to work following her lunch hour. In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that she was discriminated against based upon her sex because she was discharged when she refused to continue a “personal relationship” with her immediate supervisor. Summary judgment should have been granted dismissing the complaint. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to allege and prove that the plaintiff’s employer “knew of or condoned the discriminatory conduct by [plaintiff’s immediate supervisor].” (Matter of State Univ. of N. Y. v State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 81 AD2d 688, 689, affd for reasons stated by App Div 55 NY2d 896; see, also, Hart v Sullivan, 84 AD2d 865, affd for reasons stated by App Div 55 NY2d 1011.) In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant submitted affidavits showing that it had no knowledge of any discriminatory acts by plaintiff’s supervisor. Plaintiff, in opposition, has submitted no evidence to the contrary. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Smith, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Boomer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 1145, 467 N.Y.S.2d 457, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcbride-v-general-railway-signal-co-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack