From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Faulkner v. Owner's

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 2008
49 A.D.3d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2006-10620.

March 11, 2008.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for housing discrimination based on race, sex, and marital status in violation of Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered September 29, 2006, which granted the motion of the defendant 609-611-615 Owner's Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Sapir Frumkin LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (William D. Frumkin and Emily A. Roscia of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Carni, JJ.,


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant 609-611-615 Owner's Corp. (hereinafter the defendant), a cooperative corporation, established its entitlement to summary judgment by showing that it did not reject the plaintiffs application to purchase an apartment in a cooperative development in violation of Executive Law § 296, based on the plaintiffs sex, race, or marital status. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see McCarthy v St. Francis Hosp., 41 AD3d 794; Cesar v Highland Care Ctr., Inc., 37 AD3d 393, 394). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.


Summaries of

Faulkner v. Owner's

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 2008
49 A.D.3d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Faulkner v. Owner's

Case Details

Full title:MARY E. FAULKNER, Appellant, v. 609-611-615 OWNER'S CORP., Respondent, et…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 596 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2105
852 N.Y.S.2d 790

Citing Cases

Maun v. Edgemont at Tarrytown Condo.

Nonetheless, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants' motion which were for…