The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the * United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. 1 09-3130-cv Syrkin v. State University of New York



### UNITE D STA TES C OURT OF AP PEALS FOR T HE SE COND CIRCU IT 

# SUM MARY O RDE R

R ULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT . C ITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED O N O RA FTER J

ANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL R ULE OF APPELLATE P R O C E D URE 32.1 AN D THIS COURT ’ S L OCAL R ULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS CO URT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE ( WITH THE NOTATION “ SUMMARY ORDER ”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL . 

### 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals 

### 2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

### 3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of 

### 4 New York, on the 19 day of March, two thousand ten. th 

### 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 

### 7 Chief Judge, 

### 8 GERARD E. LYNCH, 

### 9 Circuit Judge, 

### 10 JANE A. RESTANI , * 

### 11 Judge. 

### 12 13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X MARK SYRKIN, 

### 14 Plaintiff Appellant, 

### 15 16 17 -v.- 09-3130-cv 

### 18 19 STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, ROBERT 

### 20 L. KING, in his official capacity as 

### 21 Chancellor of the State University of 

### 22 New York, and/or his successor(s), and 

### 23 JOHN W. CRAINE, JR., in his official 

### 24 capacity as President or Interim 

### 25 President of the State University of 

### 26 New York Maritime College, and/or his 

### 27 successor(s), 

### 28 Defendants-Appellees. 

### 29 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X2

APPEARING FOR APPELLANT: JAMES M. MALONEY, Law Office of 

### 1 2 James M. Maloney, Port 

### 3 Washington, NY. 

### 4 5 APPEARING FOR APPELLEES: KAREN SCHOEN (Barbara D. 

### 6 Underwood, Benjamin N. Gutman, 

### 7 Ann P. Zybert on the brief) on 

### 8 behalf of Andrew M. Cuomo, 

### 9 Attorney General of the State of 

### 10 New York, New York, NY. 

### 11 12 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 

### 13 Court for the Eastern District of New York (Block, J.). 

### 14 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 

### 15 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be 

### 16 AFFIRMED . We assume the parties’ familiarity with the 

### 17 underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues 

### 18 presented for review. 

### 19 This Court reviews the district court’s grant of 

### 20 summary judgment de novo. See Young v. County of Fulton, 

### 21 160 F.3d 899, 902 (2d Cir. 1998). In doing so, this Court 

### 22 is required to construe the evidence in the light most 

### 23 favorable to the non-moving party and to draw all reasonable 

### 24 inferences in its favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 

### 25 Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). 

### 26 We affirm the district court’s grant of summary 

### 27 judgment to defendants Robert King and John Craine for 

### 28 substantially the same reasons stated by the district court 

### 29 in its September 8, 2008 opinion. The district court had3 

### 1 previously granted the State University of New York’s 

### 2 (“SUNY”) motion for summary judgment on the ground that 

### 3 plaintiff Mark Syrkin’s complaint was not timely. As the 

### 4 Title VII claim against SUNY is based on the same facts and 

### 5 decided under the same standard as the Section 1983 claims 

### 6 against King and Craine, we need not decide the timeliness 

### 7 issues; instead we affirm the district court’s grant of 

### 8 summary judgment for SUNY on the alternative merits grounds 

### 9 as stated in the September 8, 2008 opinion. See Feingold v. 

### 10 New York, 366 F.3d 138, 159 (2d. Cir 2004) (“The elements of 

### 11 one are generally the same as the elements of the other and 

### 12 the two must stand or fall together.”); Abdu-Brisson v. 

### 13 Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 466 (2d Cir. 2001) 

### 14 (“[W]e may affirm a grant of summary judgment for different 

### 15 reasons than those relied upon by the district court.”). 

### 16 Finding no merit in Syrkin’s remaining arguments, we 

### 17 hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 

### 18 19 20 21 22 23 FOR THE COURT: 

### 24 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 

### 25 26 27