Reyes v. Brinks Global Servs. United States, Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 December 2013
• Parties: Hugh REYES, appellant, v. BRINKS GLOBAL SERVICES USA, INC., et al., respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

112 A.D.3d 805
978 N.Y.S.2d 63
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08425

Hugh REYES, appellant,
v.
BRINKS GLOBAL SERVICES USA, INC., et al., respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Dec. 18, 2013.

Eric Andrew Suffin, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Sharon P. Margello and Christopher J. Capone of counsel), for respondents.

[978 N.Y.S.2d 64]

PETER B. SKELOS, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for discrimination in employment on the basis of race in violation of Executive Law § 296 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8–107, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (James J. Golia, J.), dated January 20, 2012, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied his cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Preliminarily, although the plaintiff purports to appeal from two orders dated June 20, 2011, and June 21, 2011, respectively, he failed to designate those orders in his notice of appeal ( seeCPLR 5515). Accordingly, we do not reach the issues raised in connection with those orders.

The defendant Brinks, Inc. (hereinafter Brinks), by whom the defendant James Mullen was employed, is engaged in the business of providing security for cash and other valuable property of its customers, at various secured facilities. The plaintiff worked as a “Building/Turret Guard” at a Brinks facility located in Springfield Gardens. He was discharged from his position following an incident on May 25, 2009, in which he abandoned his guard post and locked himself and other Brinks employees out of the subject facility for several hours. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action to recover damages for discrimination in employment on the basis of race, and unlawful retaliation, in violation of Executive Law § 296 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8–107. The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the plaintiff cross-moved to amend the complaint to add causes of action alleging disability discrimination and hostile work environment in violation of Executive Law § 296 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8–107. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion and denied the plaintiff's cross motion.

Under the circumstances of...