LEON v. Nerida Urban, in her Individual and Official Capacity, Harvey Katz, in his Individual and Official Capacity, Defendants. (2018)

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Lillie Leon, proceeding pro se, appeals the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees with respect to her claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and state and city human rights laws, and her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review orders granting summary judgment de novo and focus on whether the district court properly concluded that there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Sotomayor v. City of New York, 713 F.3d 163, 164 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

We note that the record does not reflect that Leon received the usual warning about the nature and consequences of a summary judgment motion, including the need to adduce evidence, and not simply reply on allegations in the complaint, per Vital v. Interfaith Medical Center, 168 F.3d 615, 620-21 (2d Cir. 1999). The absence of such a warning is “ordinarily grounds for reversal.” Ruotolo v. IRS, 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Reversal is not warranted, however, “where the record otherwise makes clear that the litigant understood the nature and consequences of summary judgment.” Vital, 168 F.3d at 621. Here, Leon’s papers in opposition to summary judgment cited to Local Rule 56.1, and she included 60 pages of exhibits. Accordingly, we do not reverse. See Sawyer v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., AFL-CIO, 180 F.3d 31, 34-36 (2d Cir. 1999) (upholding summary judgment despite absence of proper notice where pro se plaintiff “knew that he was required to produce evidence supporting the issues of material fact that he needed to preserve for trial”).

Here, an independent review of the record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly granted summary judgment. We affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough September 29, 2017 decision.

We have considered all of Leon’s arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.