Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Hirschfeld v. Institutional Investor, Inc.
Citations: 260 A.D.2d 171; 688 N.Y.S.2d 31; 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3610
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 6, 1999; New York; State Appellate Court
The Supreme Court of New York County, under Justice Leland DeGrasse, issued an order on May 15, 1997, granting summary judgment for defendants on the first cause of action for age discrimination, effectively dismissing the case against Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. and Leonard K. Herman. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the second and third causes of action, which alleged defamation and sought severance pay. However, upon review, the court modified its decision to grant summary judgment for the defendants on these two causes as well. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to contest the employer’s nondiscriminatory reasons for her termination, thus not meeting the burden of proof required. It was noted that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that Herman or Capital Cities/ABC had any control or involvement in her termination. Regarding the defamation claim against defendants Institutional Investor, Inc., Peter A. Derow, and Jeffrey L. MacDonald, the court found that the plaintiff had consented to the publication of the termination reasons by requesting a written statement, which negated the defamation claim under New York law. Even if there was no consent, the communication fell under a qualified privilege due to MacDonald’s legitimate interest in responding to the plaintiff’s request. The claim for severance pay was dismissed as the plaintiff did not show evidence of detrimental reliance on the severance policy, and even if such a policy existed, it would be pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as established in prior case law. The ruling was concurred by Justices Sullivan, Nardelli, Lerner, and Rubin, with no costs or disbursements awarded. In the case of Eric Straker et al. v. Rudolph W. Giuliani et al., the Supreme Court of New York, under Justice David Saxe, issued an order on January 22, 1998, reversing a prior judgment that granted petitioners, former members of the Special Operations Squad (SOS) of the Transit Police Department, the designation of "Detective Third Grade" retroactive to their completion of 18 months of service. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the investigative duties performed by SOS members were comparable to those performed by other officers who had been granted detective status. The petitioners argued that, following the merger of the Transit Authority Police Department with the New York City Police Department, they were entitled to this designation under Administrative Code §14-103(b.2), which mandates detective appointment for officers temporarily assigned to detective duties exceeding 18 months. The court acknowledged evidence that SOS members performed some detective functions but concluded that the matter required further examination to ascertain the nature and duration of their investigative duties compared to those of other units that received detective status. Consequently, the case was remanded for a hearing focused on this specific comparison. The court dismissed other arguments made by the respondents as without merit.