Case ID: f-appx_468/html/0022-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juliana VELAZQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Raymond Kelly, Lt. Thomas Hartigan, Sgt. Charles Romero, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-3739-cv.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 30, 2012.
    Christopher Bellistri, Cronin & Byczek LLP, Lake Success, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Mordecai Newman (Larry A. Sonnen-shein, of counsel), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB and DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Juliana Velazquez (“Velazquez”) appeals from the August 19, 2010 order of the District Court granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees the City of New York, New York City Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Lieutenant Thomas Hartigan, and Sergeant Charles Romero (jointly, the “defendants”) and dismissing her claims of sex discrimination, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and retaliation, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., New York State Executive Law § 296, and New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107; municipal liability in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and various state law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring and supervision, malicious prosecution, false arrest, and assault. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment, drawing all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” See, e.g., Paneccasio v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 532 F.3d 101, 107 (2d Cir.2008). “Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Dominger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334, 344 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)).

Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s thorough and careful order, we affirm the grant of summary judgment to the defendants. Upon a review of the record and the arguments of counsel, we reject Velazquez’s remaining arguments as lacking in merit.

CONCLUSION

We reject all of Velazquez’s claims on appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.