| Dunn v Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04273 [51 AD3d 474] |
| May 8, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Marylyn R. Dunn, Appellant, v Astoria Federal Savingsand Loan Association et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Jackson Lewis LLP, Melville (Roger H. Briton of counsel), for Astoria Federal Savings andLoan Association, George L. Engelke, Jr. and Gary T. McCann, respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered January 30, 2007,which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissingplaintiff's causes of action for retaliatory termination and sexual harassment/hostile workenvironment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff was terminated from her employment as a secretary for defendant Javitz atdefendant Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association after it was discovered from a thirdparty that she forged Javitz's signature on a credit card authorization letter for her son. Followingher termination, plaintiff brought this action alleging that her firing was, in fact, retaliation forthreatening to bring a sexual harassment claim against Javitz.
The motion court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants dismissing theretaliatory termination cause of action where the evidence establishes that plaintiff did notcomplain to anyone at the bank, including Astoria's Human Resource Department, about Javitz'salleged wrongful conduct and thus, there are no triable issues of fact as to her employer'sknowledge of the alleged harassment (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 313 [2004]).Nor are there triable issues of fact that plaintiff's complaint to defendant Javitz caused Astoria toterminate her. Furthermore, the overwhelming evidence of plaintiff's forgery, provided alegitimate, nondiscriminatory basis for her termination (id.).
Dismissal of plaintiff's sexual harassment/hostile work environment claim was alsoappropriate, since plaintiff failed to avail herself of Astoria's antidiscrimination policy of whichshe was aware (see Burlington Industries, Inc. v Ellerth, 524 US 742, 765 [1998];Faragher v Boca Raton, 524 US 775, 807-808 [1998]). Contrary to plaintiff's contention thatthis affirmative defense is unavailable in light of her termination, the evidence establishes thatplaintiff's termination was not retaliatory.[*2]
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions andfind them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Moskowitz andRenwick, JJ.