From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Budzanoski v. Pfizer, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 9, 1997
245 A.D.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 9, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lorraine Miller, J.).


Given the jury's finding, amply supported by the evidence, that plaintiff's transfer was not in retaliation for her complaint that age and race discrimination were the reasons she had been denied a promotion to the position of Director of defendant's Equal Opportunity Affairs Unit, the fact that plaintiff's discrimination complaint preceded by some two years her termination from defendant's employ, during which time she received salary increases, and the ample evidence of plaintiff's insubordination to her supervisors after her transfer, there is no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences that could possibly have led to the conclusion that defendant had a "subjective retaliatory motive" for terminating plaintiff (Matter of Pace Univ. v. New York City Commn. on Human Rights, 85 N.Y.2d 125, 128). We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Budzanoski v. Pfizer, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 9, 1997
245 A.D.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Budzanoski v. Pfizer, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARILYN BUDZANOSKI, Appellant, v. PFIZER, INC., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Dec 9, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
664 N.Y.S.2d 796

Citing Cases

Taylor v. New York University Medical Center

Defendants aver that plaintiff was fired by MSB after they brought to MSB's attention a conflict of interest…

Orlando v. BNP Paribas N. Am., Inc.

) In two of the cases cited by defendants to support this argument, two or more years and numerous positive…