Opinion
2014-04-23
William S. SWAN, respondent, v. ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY, et al., appellants, et al., defendants.
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Louis P. DiLorenzo, Michael P. Collins, and Kseniya Premo of counsel), for appellants. Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Daniel J. Kaiser of counsel), for respondent.
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Louis P. DiLorenzo, Michael P. Collins, and Kseniya Premo of counsel), for appellants. Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Daniel J. Kaiser of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for discrimination in employment on the basis of age in violation of Executive Law § 296 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8–107, the defendants St. John's University, Donald J. Harrington, James P. Pellow, Mary T. Harper Hagan, Steven D. Papamarcos, and Joseph E. Oliva appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (J. Golia, J.), dated June 27, 2012, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the first through sixth causes of action.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendants St. John's University, Donald J. Harrington, James P. Pellow, Mary T. Harper Hagan, Steven D. Papamarcos, and Joseph E. Oliva for summary judgment dismissing the first through sixth causes of action is granted.
The Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the appellants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the first, third, and fifth causes of action, which allege age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law ( see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 8–107 [1][a]; [7] ). The appellants made “a prima facie showing that there is no evidentiary route that could allow a jury to believe that discrimination [or retaliation] played a role in their challenged actions” (Reyes v. Brinks Global Servs. USA, Inc., 112 A.D.3d 805, 806, 978 N.Y.S.2d 63 [internal quotation marks omitted], lv. denied ––– N.Y.3d ––––, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 68738, 2014 WL 1362348 [2014];see Brightman v. Prison Health Serv., Inc., 108 A.D.3d 739, 741, 970 N.Y.S.2d 789;Cenzon–Decarlo v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 101 A.D.3d 924, 927, 957 N.Y.S.2d 256). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.
For the same reasons, the Supreme Court also should have granted those branches of the appellants' motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the second, fourth, and sixth causes of action, which allege age discrimination and retaliation in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law ( seeExecutive Law § 296[1][a], [e]; Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 305–306, 312–313, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998). MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, CHAMBERS and LOTT, JJ., concur.