From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sass v. Hewlett-Packard

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sep 26, 2017
153 A.D.3d 1185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

Opinion

09-26-2017

Robert SASS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. HEWLETT–PACKARD, Defendant–Respondent.

Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C., New York (Daniel J. Kaiser of counsel), for appellant. Cozen O'Connor, New York (Michael C. Schmidt of counsel), for respondent.


Kaiser Saurborn & Mair, P.C., New York (Daniel J. Kaiser of counsel), for appellant.

Cozen O'Connor, New York (Michael C. Schmidt of counsel), for respondent.

RICHTER J.P., MOSKOWITZ, GESMER, SINGH, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered August 24, 2016, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff has failed to point to any evidence to support an inference that he was terminated on account of his age (see Bennett v. Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29, 35, 40–41, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112 [1st Dept.2011], lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 811, 2012 WL 1432090 [2012] ). Plaintiff points to no direct evidence of age-related bias, and he testified that he never heard of any remarks made about his age. His claim of age discrimination instead rests entirely on the allegation that he was replaced by a younger employee. The record does not state the age of the woman who allegedly replaced him, however, but instead contains only witnesses' "guess [es]" that she was in her "mid–40s." Such "conjecture" as to an alleged replacement employee's age does not suffice to raise a triable issue of fact on a motion for summary judgment ( Grella v. St. Francis Hosp., 149 A.D.3d 1046, 1049, 53 N.Y.S.3d 330 [2d Dept.2017] ; see Soho Ctr. for Arts & Educ. v. Church of St. Anthony of Padua, 146 A.D.2d 407, 411, 541 N.Y.S.2d 396 [1st Dept.1989] ).

The record provides no basis to find that the alleged replacement was substantially younger than plaintiff, as required to support an inference of age discrimination in the absence of direct or statistical evidence (see Melman v. Montefiore Med. Ctr., 98 A.D.3d 107, 114–115 and n. 2, 946 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept.2012] ; Weit v. Flaum, 258 A.D.2d 286, 286–287, 685 N.Y.S.2d 654 [1st Dept.1999] ).


Summaries of

Sass v. Hewlett-Packard

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sep 26, 2017
153 A.D.3d 1185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
Case details for

Sass v. Hewlett-Packard

Case Details

Full title:Robert SASS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. HEWLETT–PACKARD, Defendant–Respondent.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Sep 26, 2017

Citations

153 A.D.3d 1185 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)
153 A.D.3d 1185
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 6628

Citing Cases

McCourt v. Fashion Inst. of Tech.

Here, plaintiff speculates that, "upon information and belief," Cohen "was in his 30s" and Vitery "was in…

Marseille v. Mount Sinai Health Sys.

There must, however, be evidence to support the assertions about a plaintiff's replacement. Thus, a New York…