DeANGELIS v. JOHN T. MATHER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OF PORT JEFFERSON, NEW YORK, INC.

No. CV 15-2363 (LDW) (AYS).

JANET DEANGELIS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN T. MATHER HOSPITAL OF PORT JEFFERSON, NEW YORK, INC., Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1201
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1201 Civil Rights (Disability)
Nature of Suit: 445 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Janet DeAngelis, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon David Okano , Leeds Brown Law, P.C..

Janet DeAngelis, Plaintiff, represented by Rick Ostrove , Leeds Brown Law, P.C. & Sean M. O'Hara , Leeds Brown Law, P.C..

John T. Mather Memorial Hospital of Port Jefferson New York, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Bernard Fulfree , Putney, Twombly, Hall & Hirson LLP & Mary Ellen Donnelly , Putney, Twombly, Hall & Hirson LLP.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MEMORIAL

LEONARD D. WEXLER, District Judge.

Plaintiff Janet DeAngelis brings this action against defendant John T. Mather Memorial Hospital of Port Jefferson, New York, Inc., asserting claims for disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") [DE 30]. Plaintiff opposes the motion and requests that the Court ignore "Defendant's Reply Statement in Opposition to Plaintiff's Counterstatement Pursuant to Local Rule 56.1 ("LCR 56.1 Reply") [DE 38, 40].

Upon consideration, the Court denies plaintiff's request that the Court ignore defendant's LCR 56.1 Reply, and the Court denies defendant's motion for summary judgment, as genuine disputes of material fact exist precluding the entry of summary judgment. See FRCP 56(a) (party seeking summary judgment must demonstrate that "there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law"); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Gallo v. Prudential Residential Servs. Ltd. P'ship, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223-24 (2d Cir. 1994).

SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases