Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

John TAVERNA, appellant, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., respondents.

Decided: January 24, 2000

CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ. Leeds & Morelli, Carle Place, N.Y. (Fredric Ostrove of counsel), for appellant. Steptoe & Johnson, LLP (Rains & Pogrebin, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. [Mark N. Reinharz] of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Executive Law § 296 to recover damages for employment discrimination, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated September 23, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for unlawful employment discrimination pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that on a motion to dismiss a pleading for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the pleading is to be liberally construed, accepting all the facts alleged therein to be true and according the allegations the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see, Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511).   Here, the court properly dismissed the cause of action to recover damages for employment discrimination, since the complaint failed to state the essential elements required for such a cause of action (see, Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207;  Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 665 N.Y.S.2d 25, 687 N.E.2d 1308).


Copied to clipboard