Thygesen v. N. Bailey Volunteer Fire Co.

• Decision Date: 09 June 2017
• Citation: 57 N.Y.S.3d 582,151 A.D.3d 1708
• Parties: William J. THYGESEN, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. NORTH BAILEY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., Warren G. Holmes, Individually and in his capacity as President of North Bailey Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., David Humbert, Individually and in his capacity as Fire Chief of North Bailey Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., Daniel Strozyk, Individually and in his capacity as Investigator for New York State Division of State Police and New York State Division of State Police, Defendants–Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

151 A.D.3d 1708

57 N.Y.S.3d 582

William J. THYGESEN, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.NORTH BAILEY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC., Warren G. Holmes, Individually and in his capacity as President of North Bailey Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., David Humbert, Individually and in his capacity as Fire Chief of North Bailey Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., Daniel Strozyk, Individually and in his capacity as Investigator for New York State Division of State Police and New York State Division of State Police, Defendants–Respondents.

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

June 9, 2017.

Hogan Willig, PLLC, Amherst (Steven M. Cohen of Counsel), for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Underberg & Kessler LLP, Buffalo (Colin D. Ramsey of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents North Bailey Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., Warren G. Holmes, Individually and in his capacity as President of North Bailey Volunteer Fire Company, Inc., and David Humbert, Individually and in his capacity as Fire Chief of North Bailey Volunteer Fire Company, Inc.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of Counsel), for Defendants–Respondents Daniel Strozyk, Individually and in his capacity as Investigator for New York State Division of State Police and New York State Division of State Police.

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CENTRA, LINDLEY, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff, a former member of defendant North Bailey Volunteer Fire Company, Inc. (Fire Company), commenced this action alleging, inter alia, that defendants discriminated against him and violated his civil rights when they expelled him from membership in the Fire Company. On a prior appeal, we modified an order by reinstating certain causes of action ( Thygesen v. North Bailey Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 106 A.D.3d 1458, 964 N.Y.S.2d 816 ). In a separate CPLR article 78 proceeding commenced by plaintiff, we confirmed the determination expelling plaintiff from membership in the Fire Company (Matter of Thygesen v. North Bailey Volunteer Fire Co., Inc., 100 A.D.3d 1416, 954 N.Y.S.2d 314 ). Plaintiff now appeals from an order granting defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them.

Contrary to plaintiff's contention, the court properly granted those parts of defendants' motions with respect to the causes of action alleging that they violated Executive Law § 296(16), which are based upon the testimony of defendant Daniel Strozyk, individually and in his capacity as investigator for the New York State Division of Police, at the disciplinary hearing regarding admissions plaintiff made in connection with a criminal investigation that resulted in plaintiff's arrest for two offenses. It is undisputed that the charges against plaintiff were dismissed following adjournments in contemplation of dismissal and that the records of those criminal prosecutions were sealed prior to the disciplinary hearing. Nevertheless, as we explained in our decision in the CPLR article 78 proceeding, "it is permissible to consider the independent evidence of the conduct leading to the criminal charges ..., [and thus] the police investigator was free to testify from memory [with respect to plaintiff's admissions] concerning the conduct that led to [his] arrests" ( Thygesen, 100 A.D.3d at 1417, 954 N.Y.S.2d 314 [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

We agree with plaintiff, however, that he raised an issue of fact sufficient to defeat the motion of the Fire Company and defendants Warren G. Holmes, individually and in his capacity as president of the Fire Company, and David Humbert, individually and in his capacity as Fire Chief of the Fire Company (collectively, Fire Company defendants), with respect to the first and second causes of action, alleging that they violated Executive Law § 296(1) and Civil Rights Law § 40–c by discriminating against him based upon his sexual orientation. We therefore modify the order accordingly. As relevant here, "[a] plaintiff alleging [sexual orientation] discrimination in employment has the initial burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination ... [and] must show[, inter alia,] that ... the discharge or other adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination" ( Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 N.Y.3d 295, 305, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998 ; see Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 629, 665 N.Y.S.2d 25, 687 N.E.2d 1308 ). In support of their motion, the Fire Company defendants were required to "demonstrate either plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their challenged actions, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether their explanations were pretextual" ( Forrest, 3 N.Y.3d at 305, 786 N.Y.S.2d 382, 819 N.E.2d 998 ). We conclude that, although the Fire Company defendants did not meet their burden...