Opinion
2001-05711
Argued May 13, 2002.
June 18, 2002
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination pursuant to Executive Law § 296 and New York City Administrative Code § 8-107, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 4, 2001, as granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe, LLP, New York, N.Y. (John D. Giansello of counsel), for appellant.
Kaiser Saurborn Mair, P.C., New York, N.Y. (David N. Mair of counsel), for respondent.
Before: ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint was properly granted. The plaintiff pled guilty in the Superior Court of New Jersey to the charge of endangering the welfare of a child. That the charge was later ordered dismissed because the plaintiff subsequently completed treatment in a "Pretrial Intervention Program," does not constitute a favorable determination within the contemplation of CPL 160.50(3) (see Matter of N.J.D. Elecs. v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 205 A.D.2d 323, 324-325; cf. Dwyer v. Guido, 54 A.D.2d 956, 957). Accordingly, since the plaintiff was not a member of the class protected by Executive Law § 296(16) and New York City Administrative Code § 8-107(11), and thus cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination pursuant to that statute and ordinance, respectively, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the amended complaint (see Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 629). We note that since the plaintiff failed to raise any issues with respect to his claims pursuant to Executive Law § 296(15) and New York City Administrative Code § 8-107(10), he has abandoned those claims on appeal (see Agee v. Ajar, 154 A.D.2d 569, 571-572).
In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.
FLORIO, J.P., O'BRIEN, KRAUSMAN and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.