| Dombrowski v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07135 [77 AD3d 608] |
| October 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Karen L. Dombrowski et al., Respondents, v MetropolitanProperty and Casualty Insurance Company et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendant. |
—[*1] William S. Neal, Woodhaven, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for sex discrimination, the defendants MetropolitanProperty and Casualty Insurance Company and Larry Devaney appeal, as limited by their brief, fromso much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), dated April 14, 2009, asdenied that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar asasserted against them.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thatbranch of the appellants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar asasserted against them is granted.
The appellants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law bydemonstrating, among other things, that the plaintiffs were independent contractors engaged to sellinsurance products pursuant to an agency agreement which was eventually terminated, in accordancewith its termination clause, for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (see Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3NY3d 295, 305 [2004]; Scott v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 86 NY2d 429, 434[1995]; DeFrancis v North Shore PlainviewHosp., 52 AD3d 562, 562 [2008]; Hutchinson v New York City Tr. Auth., 309AD2d 901, 901 [2003]; Lavergne v Burden, 244 AD2d 203 [1997]; Sone vTsumura, 222 AD2d 231, 232 [1995]; Mehtani v New York Life Ins. Co., 145 AD2d90, 93 [1989]).
In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and "failed to show that factsessential to justify opposition may exist upon further discovery" (Vidal v Tsitsiashvili, 297AD2d 638, 638 [2002]; see Auerbach v Bennett, 47 NY2d 619, 636 [1979]; Ruttura &Sons Constr. Co. v Petrocelli Constr., 257 AD2d 614, 615 [1999]; Mazzaferro v BarteramaCorp., 218 AD2d 643 [1995]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branchof the appellants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst them. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.