From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matz v. Prospect Energy Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 30, 2009
63 A.D.3d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 930.

June 30, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered November 19, 2008, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thompson Wigdor Gilly LLP, New York (Scott B. Gilly of counsel), for appellant.

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom LLP, New York (Maura Barry Grinalds of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.


The complaint was properly dismissed in this action where plaintiff, a job applicant for a senior management position, alleges that defendants refused to hire him after inquiring and learning of his sexual orientation during a reference check. Flaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination inasmuch as he failed to show that he was denied employment under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination ( see Brennan v Metropolitan Opera Assn., 284 AD2d 66, 70).

The documentary evidence shows that defendants maintained throughout the hiring process that they did not offer plaintiff a job, but were interested in evaluating his capabilities by having him work on various projects. The evidence further demonstrates that prior to learning of plaintiffs sexual orientation, defendants had concerns regarding plaintiffs skills and rejected his aggressive style and attempts to accelerate the hiring process ( see Bishop v Maurer, 33 AD3d 497, 498, affd 9 NY3d 910 [on motion to dismiss "court . . . is not required to accept factual allegations, or accord favorable inferences, where the factual assertions are plainly contradicted by documentary evidence"]).

Plaintiff failed to show any facts as to warrant discovery pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d) ( see e.g. Fitz-Gerald v Donaldson, Lufkin Jenrette, 294 AD2d 176).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

[ See 2008 NY Slip Op 33089(U).]


Summaries of

Matz v. Prospect Energy Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 30, 2009
63 A.D.3d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Matz v. Prospect Energy Corp.

Case Details

Full title:HOWARD J. MATZ, Appellant, v. PROSPECT ENERGY CORPORATION et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 30, 2009

Citations

63 A.D.3d 619 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 5373
882 N.Y.S.2d 84

Citing Cases

Vandenberg, Inc. v. Townhouse 84, LLC

Plaintiff's proposition that disclosure would shed more light on the facts is too unspecific to forestall…

Vandenberg, Inc. v. Townhouse 84, LLC

Plaintiff's proposition that disclosure would shed more light on the facts is too unspecific to forestall…