| Sayegh v Fiore |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07624 [88 AD3d 981] |
| October 25, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Basam Sayegh, Appellant, v Anthony Fiore, Defendant,and Scarsdale Ford, Inc., Respondent. |
—[*1] Milman Labuda Law Group PLLC, Lake Success, N.Y. (Adam C. Weiss of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for employment discrimination on the basis ofnational origin and ethnicity pursuant to Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered March 30, 2010,which granted the motion of the defendant Scarsdale Ford, Inc., for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
To establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in a case alleging discrimination, the"defendants must demonstrate either plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentionaldiscrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their challengedactions, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether their explanations were pretextual"(Forrest v Jewish Guild for theBlind, 3 NY3d 295, 305 [2004]; see Michno v New York Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Queens, 71 AD3d 746[2010]; Apiado v North Shore Univ.Hosp. [At Syosset], 66 AD3d 929 [2009]; Balsamo v Savin Corp., 61 AD3d 622 [2009]; DeFrancis v North Shore PlainviewHosp., 52 AD3d 562 [2008]).
Here, the defendant Scarsdale Ford, Inc. (hereinafter the defendant), established, prima facie,that it terminated the plaintiff's employment for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. Inresponse, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant's profferedreasons for termination were merely pretextual (see Ferrante v American Lung Assn., 90NY2d 623, 630 [1997]; Apiado v North Shore Univ. Hosp. [At Syosset], 66AD3d at 929; Morse v Cowtan & Tout,Inc., 41 AD3d 563, 564 [2007]).
The defendant also established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing theplaintiff's claim of a hostile work environment by proffering sufficient evidence that the allegedlyoffensive conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff'semployment and create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment (see Morse vCowtan & Tout, Inc., 41 AD3d at 564; Thompson v Lamprecht Transp., 39 AD3d 846, 847 [2007]). Inresponse, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.[*2]
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. Leventhal, J.P., Austin, Romanand Cohen, JJ., concur.