Green v Continuum Health Partners, Inc.

Green v Continuum Health Partners, Inc. 2011 NY Slip Op 07136 Decided on October 11, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 11, 2011
Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Catterson, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
5669 117370/08

[*1]David L. Green, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Continuum Health Partners, Inc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.



 
Jones, LLP, Scarsdale (Steven T. Sledzik of counsel), for
appellant.
Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York (Barbara A. Gross of
counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered October 26, 2010, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff failed to show a continuing violation between the sexual harassment that he alleges occurred before December 30, 2005, three years before he commenced this action (see CPLR 214[2]; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 307 [1983]), and the harassment that he alleges occurred on July 31, 2008 (see Sirota v New York City Bd. of Educ., 283 AD2d 369 [2001]). The record demonstrates that for four years before July 31, 2008, the alleged harasser, a coworker, did not communicate with plaintiff about anything other than hospital business.

As to the single timely filed allegation, plaintiff failed to show that defendants acquiesced in the coworker's conduct or failed to take appropriate corrective action (see Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ 8-107[13][b][2], [3]). The record demonstrates that defendants conducted an investigation and terminated the coworker within several months after plaintiff's receipt of the letter.

Plaintiff also failed to show, based on defendants' handling of his complaints and the complaints of female employees, that he was treated less well than other employees because of his gender (see Williams, 61 AD3d at 78).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 11, 2011

CLERK