Grabsky v Jennings

[*1] Grabsky v Jennings 2005 NY Slip Op 52026(U) [10 Misc 3d 132(A)] Decided on December 13, 2005 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on December 13, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: DECEMBER 13, 2005 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 2005 TERM SUAREZ, P.J., McCOOE, GANGEL-JACOB, JJ.
570336/05

Cynthia Grabsky Plaintiff-Respondent, 570347 Calend

against

Thomas Jennings, DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 and LOCAL 372, and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, Defendants-Appellants.

Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered October 4, 2004, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered October 4, 2004, reversed, with $10 costs, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Assuming that plaintiff established a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of the New York Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296), she failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether defendants' legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for reassigning her was pretextual. In this regard, plaintiff had to raise a question of fact concerning "either the falsity of [defendants'] proffered basis for the [reassignment] or that discrimination was more likely the real reason" (Ferrante v American Lung Association, 90 NY2d 623, 631 [1997]; see also Dickerson v Health Management Corp., 21 AD3d 326 [2005]; Mete v N.Y. State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 21 AD3d 288 [2005]; Jefferies v New York City Housing Authority, 8 AD3d 178 [2004]). Plaintiff offered no evidence that defendant's claims concerning her absenteeism and poor job performance were false, contrived or pretextual.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: December 13, 2005