Opinion
2011-10-25
Basam SAYEGH, appellant,v.Anthony FIORE, defendant, Scarsdale Ford, Inc., respondent.
Brendan O'Meara, Bronx, N.Y., for appellant.Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC, Lake Success, N.Y. (Adam C. Weiss of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for employment discrimination on the basis of national origin and ethnicity pursuant to Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered March 30, 2010, which granted the motion of the defendant Scarsdale Ford, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a case alleging discrimination, the “defendants must demonstrate either plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their challenged actions, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether their explanations were pretextual” ( Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 305, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998; see Michno v. New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 71 A.D.3d 746, 899 N.Y.S.2d 248; Apiado v. North Shore Univ. Hosp. [ At Syosset ], 66 A.D.3d 929, 887 N.Y.S.2d 669; Balsamo v. Savin Corp., 61 A.D.3d 622, 877 N.Y.S.2d 146;
DeFrancis v. North Shore Plainview Hosp., 52 A.D.3d 562, 860 N.Y.S.2d 587).
Here, the defendant Scarsdale Ford, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), established, prima facie, that it terminated the plaintiff's employment for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant's proffered reasons for termination were merely pretextual ( see Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 630, 665 N.Y.S.2d 25, 687 N.E.2d 1308; Apiado v. North Shore Univ. Hosp. [ At Syosset ], 66 A.D.3d at 929, 887 N.Y.S.2d 669; Morse v. Cowtan & Tout, Inc., 41 A.D.3d 563, 564, 838 N.Y.S.2d 162).
The defendant also established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiff's claim of a hostile work environment by proffering sufficient evidence that the allegedly offensive conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff's employment and create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment ( see Morse v. Cowtan & Tout, Inc., 41 A.D.3d at 564, 838 N.Y.S.2d 162; Thompson v. Lamprecht Transp., 39 A.D.3d 846, 847, 834 N.Y.S.2d 312). In response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., AUSTIN, ROMAN and COHEN, JJ., concur.