Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. "To establish its entitlement to summary judgment in [a] . . . discrimination case, a defendant must demonstrate either the plaintiff's failure to establish every element of intentional discrimination, or, having offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its challenged actions, the absence of a material issue of fact as to whether the explanations proffered by the defendant were pretextual" ( Hemingway v. Pelham Country Club, 14 AD3d 536, 536; see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 3 NY3d 295, 305; Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 NY2d 623, 631; Pramdip v. Building Serv. 32B-J Health Fund, 308 AD2d 523). In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing that the plaintiff's employment had been terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the reasons proffered by the defendants for terminating the plaintiff's employment were merely pretextual ( see Forrest v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, supra at 308; Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., supra at 625-626; Hemingway v. Pelham Country Club, supra at 537; Listemann v Philips Components, 13 AD3d 494, 494; Pramdip v. Building Serv. 32B-J Health Fund, supra at 524; King v. Brooklyn Sports Club, 305 AD2d 465, 465-466; Evans v. Young Childhood Ctr., 276 AD2d 523).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.