Opinion
CV 06-44.
July 31, 2007
FRIEDMAN, HARFENIST, LANGER KRAUT, BY: STEVEN J. HARFENIST, ESQ., Attorneys for Plaintiff, Lake Success, New York.
MORGAN, LEWIS BOCKIUS, LLP, BY: JONATHAN KRAUSE, ESQ., Attorneys for Defendants, New York, New York.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendants in the above-captioned employment discrimination action moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Upon consideration of the papers in support of and in opposition to the motion, this Court finds that genuine issues of material fact exist precluding the entry of summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (a party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that "there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Donohue v. Windsor Locks Bd. of Fire Comm'rs, 834 F.2d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 1987). Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. The denial of the motion is without prejudice to renewal at the close of plaintiff's case.
SO ORDERED.