Opinion
November 14, 1999.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered June 17, 1999, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's motion for further discovery, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Chinyere Okoronkwo, for plaintiff-appellant.
Geoffrey Mort, for defendant-respondent.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Lerner, Rubin, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.
The court properly dismissed plaintiff's sex and age discrimination claims. Defendant met its burden of rebutting plaintiff's prima facie case of discrimination by showing that plaintiff was terminated because of an act of misconduct, which act plaintiff has not denied. In response, plaintiff failed to adduce evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to her contention that the reason stated by defendant was pretextual (see, Scott v. Citicorp Servs., 91 N.Y.2d 823;Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 629; Matter of Miller Brewing Co. v. State Div. of Human Rights, 66 N.Y.2d 937, 939; DeMay v. Miller Wrubel, P.C., 262 A.D.2d 184).
Denial of plaintiff `s motion for further discovery was a proper exercise of the court's broad discretion (see, Coudert Bros. v. Malmrose, 268 A.D.2d 261), given the extensive discovery that had already taken place.
We have considered and rejected plaintiff's remaining claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.