From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krinsky v. Abrams

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jan 8, 2009
305 F. App'x 784 (2d Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 07-2795-cv.

January 8, 2009.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Townes, J.). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Richard Krinsky, Brooklyn, NY, pro se Appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel for the City of New York, Edward F.X. Hart, Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Appellees.

Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, REENA RAGGI, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.


SUMMARY ORDER

Richard Krinsky appeals from a judgment entered May 30, 2007, that (1) denied his motion for summary judgment, and (2) granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Krinsky claimed defendants discriminated and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and analogous state and city laws. He also asserted state law claims of harassment, defamation, slander, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, proceedings below, and specification of issues on appeal.

We affirm the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons articulated in its thorough memorandum and order of May 25, 2007, 2007 WL 1541369. We have considered each of Krinsky's claims of error in the decision and found that they lack merit.


Summaries of

Krinsky v. Abrams

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Jan 8, 2009
305 F. App'x 784 (2d Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Krinsky v. Abrams

Case Details

Full title:Richard M. KRINSKY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sandra ABRAMS, Sheila Hanley…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Jan 8, 2009

Citations

305 F. App'x 784 (2d Cir. 2009)

Citing Cases

Williams v. N.Y. State Unified Court Sys. Office of Court Admin.

Given the broader standard used for retaliation claims, I find this action likely was adverse, as it included…

Vale v. Great Neck Water Pollution Control Dist.

He also claims he was required to undergo a psychological evaluation. None of these qualify as ‘adverse…