Kosarin-Ritter v. Mrs. John L. Strong, LLC

May 22, 2014
Versions:117 A.D.3d 603
986 N.Y.S.2d 453

In the Matter of MILTON S. RATTNER, Deceased. DAWN RATTNER et al., Appellants; RUTH KOPPEL RATTNER, Respondent. [985 NYS2d 872]—

Order, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Nora S. Anderson, S.), entered on or about December 10, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied petitioners’ motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that cross-petitioner wife waived and forfeited any inheritance under the will of decedent by reason of her violation of a prenuptial agreement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Standing is a preliminary matter that should be determined prior to a will contest (see Matter of Cook, 244 NY 63, 72 [1926]). Here, the wife has standing to challenge the transfer of the apartment and personalty bequeathed to her subsequent to the execution of the prenuptial agreement (see SCPA 702 [8], [9]; 1410). Moreover, the prenuptial agreement expressly provides that the parties could confer later benefits on each other. Thus, the court properly decided not to adjudicate the issues regarding the prenuptial agreement. Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Motion seeking to supplement record on appeal denied.

BARBARA KOSARIN-RITTER, Appellant, v MRS. JOHN L. STRONG, LLC, et al., Respondents. [986 NYS2d 453]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered March 5, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the discrimination claims under the New York City Human Rights Law (City HRL), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established “that there is no evidentiary route that could allow a jury to believe that discrimination played a role in the [termination of plaintiff’s employment]” (Bennett v Health Mgt. Sys., Inc., 92 AD3d 29, 40 [1st Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 811 [2012]). Their evidence showed that they terminated plaintiff because of her poor work performance and hostile behavior. In opposition to defendants’ motion, plaintiff failed to submit evidence tending to show that age discrimination was the real reason, or one of the reasons, for her termination (see id. at 40). Plaintiff complains about a comment about her hair, a provision about hair style in the company dress code, a comment about the company’s “going young,” and a video about senior citizens that she was sent by defendant’s COO. However, she identifies no evidence from which it could be inferred that any of these remarks and incidents were discriminatory. The comment about her hair was made during a conversation about women’s hair styles. She submitted no evidence that the dress code with respect to hair style was not applied equally to all employees. In view of defendant’s uncontroverted evidence supporting the nondiscriminatory reasons it proffered for terminating plaintiff, the evidence that defendant subsequently hired younger employees is not sufficient to establish age discrimination (see Melman v Montefiore Med. Ctr., 98 AD3d 107, 123-124 [1st Dept 2012]). Moreover, as plaintiff concedes, defendant also hired older employees after she was terminated. Plaintiff’s questioning of defendants’ business judgment is also insufficient to give rise to an inference of discrimination (id. at 121).

The aforementioned comments and incidents are insufficient to support plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim. They are merely isolated remarks and incidents that a reasonable trier of fact would find nothing more than “petty slights and trivial inconveniences” (see Williams v New York City Hous. Auth., 61 AD3d 62, 79-80 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]). Concur—Renwick, J.P., Richter, Manzanet-Daniels, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MICHAEL CURRY, Appellant. [985 NYS2d 873]—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered on or about June 30, 2010, unanimously affirmed.