Keooulay v Transcore, Inc.
2008 NY Slip Op 04656 [51 AD3d 874]
May 20, 2008
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 16, 2008


Sunney Keooulay, Appellant,
v
Transcore, Inc., et al.,Respondents.

[*1]Wolf & Wolf LLP, Bronx, N.Y. (Jason M. Wolf of counsel), for appellant.

Gordon & Rees LLP, New York, N.Y. (Deborah Swindells Donovan of counsel), forrespondents.

In an action to recover damages for unlawful retaliation in employment in violation ofExecutive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of anorder of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered February 27, 2007, as grantedthe defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied that branchof his cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the Human Rights Law (Executive Law art 15), it is unlawful to retaliate against anemployee for opposing discriminatory practices (see Executive Law § 296 [7]; Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3NY3d 295, 312 [2004]). To make out a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff mustshow that "(1) [he or] she has engaged in protected activity, (2) [his or] her employer was awarethat [he or] she participated in such activity, (3) [he or] she suffered an adverse employmentaction based upon [his or] her activity, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protectedactivity and the adverse action" (Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d at 313).

The defendants met their prima facie burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment asa matter of law. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see generallyAlvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Consequently, the plaintiff also failedto establish his entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability.[*2]

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted thedefendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied that branch ofthe plaintiff's cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability. Spolzino,J.P., Carni, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 30099(U).]


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.