Perez v. Presbyterian Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perez v. Presbyterian Hospital

277 A.D.2d 57, 717 N.Y.S.2d 518, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11951

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 57 (Perez v. 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

Perez v. Presbyterian Hospital, 277 A.D.2d 57, 717 N.Y.S.2d 518, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered June 17, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs motion for further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs sex and age discrimination claims. Defendant met its burden of rebutting plaintiffs prima facie case of discrimination by showing that plaintiff was terminated because of an act of misconduct, which act plaintiff has not denied. In response, plaintiff failed to adduce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to her contention that the reason stated by defendant was pretextual (see, Scott v Citicorp Servs., 91 NY2d 823; Ferrante v American [58]*58Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629; Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 NY2d 937, 939; DeMay v Miller & Wrubel, 262 AD2d 184).

Denial of plaintiffs motion for further discovery was a proper exercise of the court’s broad discretion (see, Coudert Bros. v Malmrose, 268 AD2d 261), given the extensive discovery that had already taken place.

We have considered and rejected plaintiffs remaining claims. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered June 17, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs motion for further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs sex and age discrimination claims. Defendant met its burden of rebutting plaintiffs prima facie case of discrimination by showing that plaintiff was terminated because of an act of misconduct, which act plaintiff has not denied. In response, plaintiff failed to adduce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to her contention that the reason stated by defendant was pretextual (see, Scott v Citicorp Servs., 91 NY2d 823; Ferrante v American [58]*58Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629; Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v State Div. of Human Rights, 66 NY2d 937, 939; DeMay v Miller & Wrubel, 262 AD2d 184).

Denial of plaintiffs motion for further discovery was a proper exercise of the court’s broad discretion (see, Coudert Bros. v Malmrose, 268 AD2d 261), given the extensive discovery that had already taken place.

We have considered and rejected plaintiffs remaining claims. Concur — Mazzarelli, J. P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 57, 717 N.Y.S.2d 518, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perez-v-presbyterian-hospital-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack