Case ID: f-appx_367/html/0167-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lynore REISECK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL COMMUNICATIONS OF MIAMI, INC., doing business as Universal Media, Blue Horizon Media, Inc., Douglas Gollan, Carl Ruderman, Geoffrey Lurie, David Bernstein, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-1632-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 11, 2010.
    John K. Diviney, (Gina Ianne Grath, on the brief), Alan B. Pearl & Associates, P.C., Syosset, NY, for Appellant.
    Dana Susman, (S. Reid Kahn, on the brief), Kane Kessler, P.C., New York, NY, for Appellee.
    Present: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges and CAROL BAGLEY AMON, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the official caption to conform to the listing of the parties stated above.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, of the United States District Court Cor the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff Lynore Reiseck (“plaintiff’ or “Reiseck”) appeals from a March 27, 2009 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, Judge) granting the motion for summary judgment of defendants Universal Communications of Miami, Douglas Gollan, Carl Ruderman, Geoffrey Lurie, and David Bernstein (collectively “defendants”) on plaintiffs various claims of employment discrimination and violations of federal, state, and city laws. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendants (1) discriminated against her on the basis of sex in violation of New York state and New York City law, N.Y. Exec. Law. § 296(l)(a); N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-107; (2) discriminated against her on the basis of her recreational activities, in violation of New York state law, N.Y. Lab. Law § 201-d(2)(c); (3) withheld overtime pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207(a), and New York state law, N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs., tit. 12, § 142-3.2; and (4) withheld commissions that she earned, in violation of New York state law, N.Y. Lab. Law § 191-c(l). On appeal, plaintiff argues that the District Court erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In a related but separately filed opinion, we dispose of Rei-seck’s claim under the overtime pay provision of the FLSA. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of this case.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo “drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.2008). Summary judgment is appropriate only “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed R. Civ. P. 56(c).

We have reviewed each of plaintiffs claims and find them to be without merit. Substantially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its March 26, 2009, 2009 WL 812258, opinion, the March 27, 2009 judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED insofar as it granted summary judgment for defendants on plaintiffs claims of discrimination and failure to pay commissions.