Mirza v. HSBC Bank USA, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mirza v. HSBC Bank USA, Inc.

79 A.D.3d 434, 911 N.Y.S.2d 611

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

DecidedDecember 2, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 434 (Mirza v. HSBC Bank USA, 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

Mirza v. HSBC Bank USA, Inc., 79 A.D.3d 434, 911 N.Y.S.2d 611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered July 16, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action alleging unlawful employment discrimination based on plaintiffs disability, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[435]*435Dismissal of the complaint was warranted since defendant presented valid reasons for plaintiff’s termination, and in response, plaintiff failed “to raise a question of fact concerning either the falsity of defendant’s proffered basis for the termination or that discrimination was more likely the real reason” (Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 631 [1997]). Indeed, the record establishes that plaintiff’s termination resulted from defendant’s reduction in work force after a decline in business volume and was necessary to increase department efficiency (see Di Mascio v General Elec. Co., 27 AD3d 854, 855 [2006]), and plaintiffs suspicions are insufficient to establish that defendant’s stated reasons for the termination were pretextual (see Brennan v Metropolitan Opera Assn., 284 AD2d 66, 71-72 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 31558(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered July 16, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action alleging unlawful employment discrimination based on plaintiffs disability, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[435]*435Dismissal of the complaint was warranted since defendant presented valid reasons for plaintiff’s termination, and in response, plaintiff failed “to raise a question of fact concerning either the falsity of defendant’s proffered basis for the termination or that discrimination was more likely the real reason” (Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 631 [1997]). Indeed, the record establishes that plaintiff’s termination resulted from defendant’s reduction in work force after a decline in business volume and was necessary to increase department efficiency (see Di Mascio v General Elec. Co., 27 AD3d 854, 855 [2006]), and plaintiffs suspicions are insufficient to establish that defendant’s stated reasons for the termination were pretextual (see Brennan v Metropolitan Opera Assn., 284 AD2d 66, 71-72 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 31558(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 434, 911 N.Y.S.2d 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mirza-v-hsbc-bank-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack