Sparozic v Hogan & Hartson L.L.P.

[*1] Sparozic v Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. 2009 NY Slip Op 50995(U) [23 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on May 21, 2009 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 May 21, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J. , Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570816/07.

Suzy Sparozic, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. and Squadron Ellenoff Plesent & Sheinfeld LLP, Defendants-Respondents.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered August 20, 2007, which denied her motion to vacate her default in opposing defendants' prior motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered August 20, 2007, affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to vacate her default. Even assuming that plaintiff proffered a reasonable excuse for failing to respond to defendants' original motion for summary judgment, she did not demonstrate the merits of her wrongful termination and retaliation claims (see QRT Assoc., Inc. v Mouzouris, 40 AD3d 326 [2007]). Plaintiff, an employee-at-will, failed to show the existence of an express written agreement or policy limiting defendants' right of discharge upon which she detrimentally relied (see Matter of DePetris v Union Settlement Assn., Inc, 86 NY2d 406 [1995]). Nor did plaintiff's submissions establish a prima facie showing of retaliation under New York's Human Rights Law (see Executive Law § 396[1][e]); Romney v New York City Tr. Auth., 8 AD3d 254 [2004]; Hernandez v Bankers Trust Co., 5 AD3d 146 [2004]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: May 21, 2009