Karen L. Dombrowski, et al., respondents, v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., appellants, et al., defendant. (2010)

Argued-September 16, 2010

DECISION & ORDER

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for sex discrimination, the defendants Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Larry Devaney appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated April 14, 2009, as denied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the appellants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them is granted.

The appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, among other things, that the plaintiffs were independent contractors engaged to sell insurance products pursuant to an agency agreement which was eventually terminated, in accordance with its termination clause, for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305;  Scott v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 86 N.Y.2d 429, 434;  DeFrancis v North Shore Plainview Hosp., 52 AD3d 562, 562;  Hutchinson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 309 A.D.2d 901, 901;  Lavergne v. Burden, 244 A.D.2d 203, 203;  Sone v. Tsumura, 222 A.D.2d 231, 232;  Mehtani v. New York Life Ins. Co., 145 A.D.2d 90, 93).

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and “failed to show that facts essential to justify opposition may exist upon further discovery” (Vidal v. Tsitsiashvili, 297 A.D.2d 638, 638;  see Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N.Y.2d 619, 636;  Ruttura & Sons Constr.   Co. v. Petrocelli Constr., 257 A.D.2d 614, 615;  Mazzaferro v. Barterama Corp., 218 A.D.2d 643).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the appellants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

DILLON, J.P., FLORIO, ROMAN and SGROI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Matthew G. Kiernan

Clerk of the Court