Partlow v. The City of Gloversville et al

Filing 37

ORDER: DENYING Defendants' # 28 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 10/13/2010. (mae)

Partlow v. The City of Gloversville et al

Doc. 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ KYLE PARTLOW, Plaintiff, vs THE CITY OF GLOVERSVILLE; and THE GLOVERSVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT, Defendants. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APPEARANCES: TULLY RINCKEY, PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff 441 New Karner Road Albany, NY 12205 W ILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP Attorneys for Defendants 9th Floor 677 Broadway Albany, NY 12207-2996 GOLDBERGER AND KREMER Attorneys for Defendants Suite 201 39 North Pearl Street Albany, NY 12207 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge ORDER Plaintiff sued the defendants pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA"), 38 U.S.C. § 4301 et seq. Defendants OF COUNSEL: GREG T. RINCKEY, ESQ. KILEY D. SCOTT, ESQ. DOUGLAS J. ROSE 6:08-CV-1046

THOMAS M. WITZ, ESQ.

BRYAN J. GOLDBERGER, ESQ.

Dockets.Justia.com

move for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. (Docket No. 28). Plaintiff opposes. (Docket No. 33). Defendants have replied. (Docket No. 35). Viewing the facts most favorable to the nonmoving plaintiff as, of course, must be done in a Rule 56 motion, he has clearly set forth direct and circumstantial evidence which creates material questions of fact for a jury. The issues include whether plaintiff was denied benefits of employment, promotion, and if he was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his military status. Questions of fact also exist as to whether the defendants had a policy in place to protect against violations of USERRA, and if so, whether plaintiff failed to utilize said policy. Therefore, it is ORDERED, that defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 13, 2010 Utica, New York.

-2-