Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the alleged acts of discrimination occurred in New York.” Id. 23 . See also Funk, 43 F.Supp.2d at 216, 219-20; Casper, 1998 WL 150993, at *10; Kudatzky v. Galbreath Co., No. 96 Civ. 2693, 1997 WL 598586, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 1997); Shapiro v. AEO/Ricoh, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 7274, at *5, 1997 WL 452026 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 1997); Olszewski v. Bloomberg, L.P., No. 96 Civ. 3393, 1997 WL 375690, at *7-*8 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 1997); Bonner, 916 F.Supp. at 276-78; Randall v. Tod-Nik Audiology, Inc., 704 N.Y.S.2d 228, 2000 WL 261041, at *1 (1st Dep’t Mar. 7, 2000); Murphy v. ERA United Realty, 251 A.D.2d 469, 674 N.Y.S.2d 415, 418 (2d Dep’t 1998); Carter v. Andriani, 84 A.D.2d 513, 443 N.Y.S.2d 157, 158 (1st Dep’t 1981); cf. Nunez v. A-T Fin. Info., Inc., 957 F.Supp. 438, 442-43 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>). 24 . Chapman argues that, because he has 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that claim for sons suicide was not actionable (B) holding statement that plaintiff was antisemitic not actionable (C) holding that conduct that was boorish vulgar and reprehensible was not actionable since it was unaccompanied by physical threats or abuse (D) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony (E) holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the plaintiffs sexbased hostile work environment claim because even though much of the complainedof conduct was boorish and offensive most of it was not personally experienced by the plaintiff
Output (English): holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony