Trieger v. Montefiore Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trieger v. Montefiore Medical Center

15 A.D.3d 175, 789 N.Y.S.2d 42, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 959

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 15 A.D.3d 175 (Trieger v. Montefiore 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

Trieger v. Montefiore Medical Center, 15 A.D.3d 175, 789 N.Y.S.2d 42, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 959 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2004, which, in an action for breach of employment contract and age discrimination, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly found that the memorandum plaintiff circulated to all other department chairs at defendant hospital, strongly criticizing defendant’s management and, inter alia, urging his cochairs “to set things right and reclaim the[ir] prerogatives and responsibilities,” was insubordinate, and that [176]*176it gave defendant just cause to terminate plaintiffs employment contract (see Crane v Perfect Film & Chem. Corp., 38 AD2d 288, 291 [1972]). An employer’s determination of good cause justifying termination of an employment contract is entitled to deference, particularly where high-level management employees are involved (see Golden v Worldvision Enters., 133 AD2d 50, 51 [1987], lv denied 71 NY2d 804 [1988]; Speiden v Innis, Speiden & Co., Inc., 216 App Div 408 [1926]).

Applying the burden-shifting analysis articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green (411 US 792 [1973]), we find that plaintiffs age discrimination claim was properly dismissed for lack of evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the hospital’s proffered reason for plaintiffs dismissal, circulation of the insubordinate memorandum, was a pretext for discrimination (see Slatky v Healthfirst, Inc., 2003 WL 22705123, 2003 US Dist LEXIS 20608 [SD NY, Nov. 17, 2003] [summary judgment granted to defendant in age discrimination case where plaintiff was terminated for insubordination]; DeMay v Miller & Wrubel, P.C., 262 AD2d 184, 185 [1999]; Mustafa v Park Lane Hotel, Inc., 12 F Supp 2d 360 [1998], affd 182 F3d 900 [1999]).

Plaintiff was terminated immediately after circulating the insubordinate memorandum, and there is no other evidence in the record to support plaintiffs claim that the hospital’s actions were pretextual. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Marlow, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ. [See 3 Misc 3d 1103(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 50350(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nelson Roman, J.), entered on or about March 10, 2004, which, in an action for breach of employment contract and age discrimination, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly found that the memorandum plaintiff circulated to all other department chairs at defendant hospital, strongly criticizing defendant’s management and, inter alia, urging his cochairs “to set things right and reclaim the[ir] prerogatives and responsibilities,” was insubordinate, and that [176]*176it gave defendant just cause to terminate plaintiffs employment contract (see Crane v Perfect Film & Chem. Corp., 38 AD2d 288, 291 [1972]). An employer’s determination of good cause justifying termination of an employment contract is entitled to deference, particularly where high-level management employees are involved (see Golden v Worldvision Enters., 133 AD2d 50, 51 [1987], lv denied 71 NY2d 804 [1988]; Speiden v Innis, Speiden & Co., Inc., 216 App Div 408 [1926]).

Applying the burden-shifting analysis articulated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green (411 US 792 [1973]), we find that plaintiffs age discrimination claim was properly dismissed for lack of evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to whether the hospital’s proffered reason for plaintiffs dismissal, circulation of the insubordinate memorandum, was a pretext for discrimination (see Slatky v Healthfirst, Inc., 2003 WL 22705123, 2003 US Dist LEXIS 20608 [SD NY, Nov. 17, 2003] [summary judgment granted to defendant in age discrimination case where plaintiff was terminated for insubordination]; DeMay v Miller & Wrubel, P.C., 262 AD2d 184, 185 [1999]; Mustafa v Park Lane Hotel, Inc., 12 F Supp 2d 360 [1998], affd 182 F3d 900 [1999]).

Plaintiff was terminated immediately after circulating the insubordinate memorandum, and there is no other evidence in the record to support plaintiffs claim that the hospital’s actions were pretextual. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Marlow, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ. [See 3 Misc 3d 1103(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 50350(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.3d 175, 789 N.Y.S.2d 42, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 959, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trieger-v-montefiore-medical-center-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack