JOHNSON v. NYU HOSPITALS CENTER

Reset A A Font size: Print

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

Patricia A. JOHNSON, respondent, v. NYU HOSPITALS CENTER, et al., appellants.

Decided: April 24, 2007

STEPHEN G. CRANE, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, and MARK C. DILLON, JJ. Jones Hirsch Connors & Bull, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Peter T. Shapiro of counsel), for appellants. Campos-Marquetti & Pagan, PLLC, New York, N.Y. (Robert Campos-Marquetti of counsel), for respondent.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for discrimination in employment on the basis of race and sex and retaliation in violation of Executive Law § 296 and New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), dated June 1, 2006, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

 “To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in [an intentional] discrimination case, a defendant must demonstrate either the plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its challenged actions, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether the explanations offered by the defendant were pretextual” (Hemingway v. Pelham Country Club, 14 A.D.3d 536, 536, 789 N.Y.S.2d 178).   Here, in opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see New York City Administrative Code § 8-130;  Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 305, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998;  Cooks v. New York City Tr. Auth., 289 A.D.2d 278, 279, 734 N.Y.S.2d 207).

 The defendants also established their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's intentional retaliation cause of action by proffering sufficient evidence that the plaintiff was terminated for legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons (see Thide v. New York State Dept. of Transp., 27 A.D.3d 452, 454, 811 N.Y.S.2d 418;  cf. New York City Administrative Code § 8-107[7] ).   In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Since the “plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact that she was either retaliated against or discriminated against because of her race [or sex], her claims that defendants aided and abetted each other in any discrimination or retaliation cannot survive” (Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, supra at 314, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998).

Similarly, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in connection with the plaintiff's remaining claim of a hostile work environment, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Copied to clipboard