From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilkinson v. Community Preservation Corp.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Jun 1, 2010
74 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion


74 A.D.3d 405 905 N.Y.S.2d 144 Andrea WILKINSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMUNITY PRESERVATION CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Respondents. 2010-04630 Supreme Court of New York, First Department June 1, 2010

          Law Office of Steven A. Morelli, Garden City, (Steven A. Morelli of counsel), for appellants.

          Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, New York (Jonathan B. Bruno of counsel), for respondents.

          GONZALEZ, P.J., SWEENY, ACOSTA, RENWICK, ROMÁN, JJ.

         Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered March 11, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Wilkinson's claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

          In support of her discrimination and retaliation claims, plaintiff Wilkinson failed to offer evidence to show that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons defendants articulated for their actions were false, contrived or pretextual ( see Koester v. New York Blood Ctr., 55 A.D.3d 447, 866 N.Y.S.2d 87 [2008]; Stewart v. Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, 44 A.D.3d 354, 841 N.Y.S.2d 878 [2007], lv. deniedHoffman v. Parade Publs., 10 N.Y.3d 707, 858 N.Y.S.2d 655, 888 N.E.2d 397 [2008] ). Additionally, plaintiff's New York City Human Rights Law claims are not viable because the alleged discriminatory conduct took place in Albany and no alleged discriminatory decision took place in New York City ( 65 A.D.3d 48, 878 N.Y.S.2d 320 [1st Dept.2009]; Duffy v. Drake Beam Morin, 1998 WL 252063 [S.D.N.Y. 1998] ).

         Even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was a third-party beneficiary of the contract between defendant Community Preservation Corporation (CPC) and Ace Holding, LLC, she failed to show that the delays in payment by CPC constituted a breach of that contract. Nor did plaintiff show that defendants owed her a fiduciary duty ( see e.g. Chester Color Separations v. Trefoil Capital Corp., 222 A.D.2d 276, 636 N.Y.S.2d 613 [1995] ).

         We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Summaries of

Wilkinson v. Community Preservation Corp.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department
Jun 1, 2010
74 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Wilkinson v. Community Preservation Corp.

Case Details

Full title:Andrea WILKINSON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMUNITY PRESERVATION…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 2010

Citations

74 A.D.3d 405 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
905 N.Y.S.2d 144