Taylor v. New York University Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. New York University Medical Center

2 A.D.3d 244, 768 N.Y.S.2d 322, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13295

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

DecidedDecember 16, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 244 (Taylor v. New York University Medical Center) 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

Taylor v. New York University Medical Center, 2 A.D.3d 244, 768 N.Y.S.2d 322, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered February 7, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, affirmed that part of an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Faviola Soto, J.), entered July 31, 2000, denying so much of defendants’ motion as sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claims discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-101 et seq.), and has made out a prima facie case (see Brennan v Metropolitan Opera Assn., 284 AD2d 66, 70 [2001]). While defendants have set forth evidence of a legitimate, independent, nondiscriminatory reason to support the decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment (see Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629 [1997]), specifically, a reorganization (see Brown v General Elec. Co., 144 AD2d 746, 747 [1988]), plaintiff has responded with evidence sufficient to raise a triable question of fact as to whether the proffered reason is a mere pretext for discrimination (Brennan, supra; and see Ferrante, 90 NY2d at 630).

Since defendants have not given plaintiff a chance to respond factually to their argument on behalf of the individual defendant in reliance on Patrowich v Chemical Bank (63 NY2d 541, 542 [1984]), made for the first time on appeal, and indeed, only in their reply brief, we do not reach it (see 440 E. 62nd St. Owners Corp. v 440 E. 62nd St. Assoc., 217 AD2d 426, 427 [1995]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Williams, JJ. [See 2002 NY Slip Op 50060CU).]

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

Order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, First Department, entered February 7, 2002, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, affirmed that part of an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Faviola Soto, J.), entered July 31, 2000, denying so much of defendants’ motion as sought summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff claims discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-101 et seq.), and has made out a prima facie case (see Brennan v Metropolitan Opera Assn., 284 AD2d 66, 70 [2001]). While defendants have set forth evidence of a legitimate, independent, nondiscriminatory reason to support the decision to terminate plaintiff’s employment (see Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 629 [1997]), specifically, a reorganization (see Brown v General Elec. Co., 144 AD2d 746, 747 [1988]), plaintiff has responded with evidence sufficient to raise a triable question of fact as to whether the proffered reason is a mere pretext for discrimination (Brennan, supra; and see Ferrante, 90 NY2d at 630).

Since defendants have not given plaintiff a chance to respond factually to their argument on behalf of the individual defendant in reliance on Patrowich v Chemical Bank (63 NY2d 541, 542 [1984]), made for the first time on appeal, and indeed, only in their reply brief, we do not reach it (see 440 E. 62nd St. Owners Corp. v 440 E. 62nd St. Assoc., 217 AD2d 426, 427 [1995]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Sullivan and Williams, JJ. [See 2002 NY Slip Op 50060CU).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 244, 768 N.Y.S.2d 322, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-new-york-university-medical-center-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack