Velez v. Frion Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Velez v. Frion Realty Corp.

300 A.D.2d 103, 750 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12180

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 12, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme [104]*104Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered October 3, 2001, which denied defendant Frión Realty Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiffs made out a prima facie case of retaliatory termination against plaintiff Efrain Velez and retaliatory eviction against both plaintiffs, since, in opposition to the summary judgment motion, they submitted evidence that Elsie Velez was engaged in protected activity, that they suffered adverse housing and employment actions and, since Efrain’s employment was terminated one week after Elsie complained to defendant’s president about the employment of one of his agents, that there was a causal connection between Elsie’s protected activity and the adverse actions (cf. Matter of Pace Univ. v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 85 NY2d 125).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme [104]*104Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered October 3, 2001, which denied defendant Frión Realty Corp.’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was properly denied. Plaintiffs made out a prima facie case of retaliatory termination against plaintiff Efrain Velez and retaliatory eviction against both plaintiffs, since, in opposition to the summary judgment motion, they submitted evidence that Elsie Velez was engaged in protected activity, that they suffered adverse housing and employment actions and, since Efrain’s employment was terminated one week after Elsie complained to defendant’s president about the employment of one of his agents, that there was a causal connection between Elsie’s protected activity and the adverse actions (cf. Matter of Pace Univ. v New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 85 NY2d 125).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Velez v. Frion Realty Corp., 300 A.D.2d 103, 750 N.Y.S.2d 847, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

300 A.D.2d 103 (Velez v. Frion Realty Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related