Williams v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. City of New York

38 A.D.3d 238, 831 N.Y.S.2d 156

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 238 (Williams v. City of New York) 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

Williams v. City of New York, 38 A.D.3d 238, 831 N.Y.S.2d 156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered March 22, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleged that denial of her appointment as a correction officer was, inter alia, in retaliation for her filing a sexual harassment claim against her employer, the New York City Housing Authority. She failed to establish a prima facie claim of retaliation, as there was no evidence of a causal connection between the filing of the harassment claim in 1998 and the denial of her appointment as a correction officer in June 2000 (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 313 [2004]). Fatal to the complaint is that plaintiff was ultimately approved for appointment on condition that she take a psychological examination, for which she did not appear. Even were it determined that there was a prima facie case of retaliation, plaintiff failed to show that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons articulated by defendants for their actions were merely a pretext (Pace v Ogden Servs. Corp., 257 AD2d 101, 105 [1999]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered March 22, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleged that denial of her appointment as a correction officer was, inter alia, in retaliation for her filing a sexual harassment claim against her employer, the New York City Housing Authority. She failed to establish a prima facie claim of retaliation, as there was no evidence of a causal connection between the filing of the harassment claim in 1998 and the denial of her appointment as a correction officer in June 2000 (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 313 [2004]). Fatal to the complaint is that plaintiff was ultimately approved for appointment on condition that she take a psychological examination, for which she did not appear. Even were it determined that there was a prima facie case of retaliation, plaintiff failed to show that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons articulated by defendants for their actions were merely a pretext (Pace v Ogden Servs. Corp., 257 AD2d 101, 105 [1999]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 238, 831 N.Y.S.2d 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack