Opinion
607 151424/13.
03-24-2016
Natara MATIAS, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NEW YORK AND PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Akin Law Group PLLC, New York (Garima Vir of counsel), for appellant. Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., New York (John F. Fullerton III of counsel), for respondents.
Akin Law Group PLLC, New York (Garima Vir of counsel), for appellant.
Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., New York (John F. Fullerton III of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Nancy M. Bannon, J.), entered September 30, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that defendants were motivated by discriminatory animus in subjecting her to adverse treatment, including repeated suspensions, an essential element of her claims for national-origin-based employment discrimination under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws (see Askin v. Department of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 110 A.D.3d 621, 973 N.Y.S.2d 629 1st Dept.2013; Bennett v. Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 A.D.3d 29, 46, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112 1st Dept.2011, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 811, 2012 WL 1432090 2012 ). The absence of any evidence of discriminatory animus is equally fatal to any claim of mixed motive (see Bennett at 40, 936 N.Y.S.2d 112).
There is no evidence that plaintiff ever engaged in any “protected activity” for purposes of her retaliation claims (Fruchtman v. City of New York, 129 A.D.3d 500, 501, 11 N.Y.S.3d 582 1st Dept.2015 ).
MAZZARELLI, J.P., MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, WEBBER, JJ., concur.