Opinion
1773
October 7, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered September 26, 2002, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Steven I. Locke, for plaintiff-appellant.
Judith A. Stoll, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner, JJ.
Plaintiff fails to adduce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether defendant's proffered reason for not promoting him, namely his lack of an open consultative management style, was pretextual. There is no showing that such criterion for promotion was contrived to keep plaintiff from getting the job, or that defendant's assessment of plaintiff's management style was false. Notably, defendant rejected two more experienced Caucasian applicants on the basis that they too lacked the open management style that defendant was seeking. Plaintiff's assertions of racial animus are conclusory (see Jordan v. American Intl. Group, 283 A.D.2d 611, lv dismissed 97 N.Y.2d 743; Broome v. Keener, 236 A.D.2d 498, 499), and the hearsay statements of his co-workers that he did not get the promotion because of his race lack probative value (see Schwaller v. Squire Sanders Dempsey, 249 A.D.2d 195, 197). Plaintiff's claim for constructive discharge was also properly dismissed, there being no evidence that his work conditions became intolerable after he was denied the promotion or that the failure to promote him was a career-ending move ( see Fischer v. KPMG Peat Marwick, 195 A.D.2d 222, 225; Alleyne v. Four Seasons Hotel — New York, 2001 US Dist LEXIS 1503, *43-44 [SDNY 2001], affd 2002 US App. LEXIS 1476; Halbrook v. Reichhold Chems., 735 F. Supp. 121, 126-127 [SDNY]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.