Lidowitz v. Rite Aid Corporation et al
Filing
40
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, defendants' motion is granted as to the age discrimination claims under the ADEA and NYSHRL, and denied as to the disability discrimination claims under ADA and NYSHRL. So Ordered. Ordered by Judge Leonard D. Wexler on 8/1/2013. (Padilla, Kristin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------X
ROBERT LIDOWITZ,
Plaintiff,
-against-
FILED
CLERK
8/1/2013 3:06 pm
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CV 12-465 (LDW) (ARL)
RITE AID CORPORATION and RITE AID OF
NEW YORK, INC. d/b/a RITE AID,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------X
WEXLER, District Judge
Plaintiff Robert Lidowitz (“Lidowitz”) brings this action against defendants Rite
Aid Corporation and Rite Aid of New York, Inc. d/b/a Rite Aid (“defendants”) asserting
claims for age and disability discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq.; the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.; and the New York State Human Rights Law
(“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. Defendants move for summary judgment
pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lidowitz opposes the
motion only as to the disability discrimination claims under the ADA and NYSHRL.
Upon consideration, the Court finds that genuine disputes of material fact exist
precluding the entry of summary judgment as to the disability discrimination claims under
the ADA and NYSHRL. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) (party seeking summary judgment
must demonstrate that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law”); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322
2
(1986); Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs. Ltd. P’ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir.
1994). Because Lidowitz does not oppose dismissal of the age discrimination claims
under the ADEA and NYSHRL, those claims are dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, defendants’ motion is granted as to the age discrimination claims
under the ADEA and NYSHRL, and denied as to the disability discrimination claims
under the ADA and NYSHRL.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
LEONARD D. WEXLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: Central Islip, New York
August 1, 2013
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?