McIntosh v. Department of Education

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McIntosh v. Department of Education

115 A.D.3d 464, 981 N.Y.S.2d 531

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.3d 464 (McIntosh v. Department of Education) 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

McIntosh v. Department of Education, 115 A.D.3d 464, 981 N.Y.S.2d 531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered January 16, 2013, dismissing the complaint, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 21, 2012, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated and the motion to dismiss denied. Appeal from aforesaid order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Applying the liberal pleading standards applicable to employment discrimination claims under the State and City Human Rights Laws (HRLs) (see e.g. Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 144-145 [1st Dept 2009]; Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107 [1] [a]), plaintiff has stated causes of action for violations of both the State and City HRLs based on age and race discrimination.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Friedman, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered January 16, 2013, dismissing the complaint, pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about November 21, 2012, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated and the motion to dismiss denied. Appeal from aforesaid order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Applying the liberal pleading standards applicable to employment discrimination claims under the State and City Human Rights Laws (HRLs) (see e.g. Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 144-145 [1st Dept 2009]; Executive Law § 296 [1] [a]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107 [1] [a]), plaintiff has stated causes of action for violations of both the State and City HRLs based on age and race discrimination.

Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Tom, Friedman, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.3d 464, 981 N.Y.S.2d 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcintosh-v-department-of-education-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack