Hoff v. WPIX, Inc. et al

Filing 49

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: denying 32 Motion to Dismiss. Before the Court is Third-Party Defendant WPIX, Inc.'s ("WPIX") motion to dismiss Third-Party Defendant Karen Scott's ADEA (29 U.S.C. § 623(d)), NYHRL (New York Exec. Law § 296(7)), and NYCHRL (New York City Admin. Code § 8-107(7)) retaliation claims. The relevant facts and legal arguments are discussed in our memorandum and order deciding a nearly identical motion in the Marchiano v. Berlamino case, which we have also released today. For the reasons stated in that memorandum and order, WPIX's motion is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Leonard B. Sand on 9/20/2012) (jfe)

CNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LARRY HOFF,
Plaintiff,
v.

WPIX, INC., TRIBUNE COMPANY, and BETTY
ELLEN BERLAMINO, in her professional and
individual capacities,
Defendant.
WPIX, INC., TRIBUNE COMPANY, and BETTY
ELLEr\' BERLAMINO, in her professional and
individual capacities,
11 Civ. 1591 (LBS)
Third-Party Plainti ffs,
~IEMORANDUl\1

v.

&

ORDER

KAREN SCOTT
Third-Party Defendant.

SAND, 1.
Before the Court is Third-Party Defendant WPIX, Inc. 's ("WPIX") motion to dismiss
Third-Party Defendant Karen Scott's ADEA (29 U.S.c. § 623(d)), NYHRL (New York Exec.
Law § 296(7)), and NYCHRL (New York City Admin. Code § 8-107(7)) retaliation claims. The
relevant facts and legal arguments are discussed in our memorandum and order deciding a nearly
identical motion in the Marchiano v. Berlamino case, which we have also released today. For
the reasons stated in that memorandum and order, WPIX's motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September--.kCl20 12
New York, NY

__ __ __

-_.

.

.

. _..

U.S.DJ.

_----­