16-316 Jeanty v. New York City Dep’t of Finance



## UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT



# SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JA NUARY 1, 2007, IS PE RMITTED AND IS GOVERNE D BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT = S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (W ITH THE NOTATION A SUMMARY ORDER @ ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 19 th day of January, two thousand eighteen.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, PETER W. HALL, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.

_____________________________________

Hamerton Jeanty,

Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v. 16-316

New York City Department of Finance,

Defendant-Appellee

.

_____________________________________

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Hamerton Jeanty, pro se, Shirley, NY.

FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York; Devin Slack and Amanda Sue Nichols, of Counsel, New York, NY.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States Di strict Court for the Southern District of New York (Gardephe, J .).2 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND

DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

.

Hamerton Jeanty, pro se, sued his employer, the New York City Department of Finance (“the Department”), for discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621–34. The Unite d States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Gardephe, J. ) granted summary judgment for the Department on Jeanty’s discrimination claim, and a jury found for the De partment on Jeanty’s retaliation claim. On appeal, Jeanty argues that the court erred by granting the Department summary judgment on the discrimination claim and by granting the Departme nt an extension of time to file summary judgment papers. He also challenges certain evid entiary rulings made by th e court during the trial on the retaliation claim. We assume the partie s’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the i ssues presented for review.

1. We review de novo the district court’s gr ant of summary judgment for the Department on Jeanty’s discrimination claim. See Sotomayor v. City of N.Y. , 713 F.3d 163, 164 (2d Cir. 2013). An independent review of th e record and relevant case law reveals that the district court properly granted the Department summary judgment for substantially the reasons stated in the district court’s thorough September 22, 2015, order. The court also acted well within its discretion in granting the Depart ment a two-week extension of time to file summary judgment

papers. See Tancredi v. Metro. Life Ins. Co ., 378 F.3d 220, 226 (2d Cir. 2004).

2. We review preserved challenges to the distri ct court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion, see Silverstein v. Chase , 260 F.3d 142, 145 (2d Cir. 2001), and unpreserved challenges to those rulings for plain error, see Pescatore v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc ., 97 F.3d 1, 18 (2d Cir. 1996).

Jeanty primarily presses an unpreserved challeng e to the court’s admission of certain time records. Jeanty fails to establish an error on th e part of the court, much less an “error . . . so serious and flagrant that it [undermines ] the very integrity of the trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Jeanty also challenges the court’s ruling that he could not introduce th e deposition of a trial witness. This challenge fails. A deposition may be used to impeach a trial witness, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(2), and it is admissi ble when the witness’s trial tes timony is inconsistent with the deposition testimony, see Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(A). But Jean ty fails to dem onstrate that the witness’s trial testimony was inconsis tent with the deposition testimony.

We have considered Jeanty’s remaining argum ents and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O = Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court