Defendant employer met its burden of rebutting plaintiffs' prima facie case of age discrimination by showing that there were legitimate business reasons behind the corporate reorganization that adversely affected plaintiffs. Plaintiffs, in responding to defendant's showing, failed to make the demonstration necessary to sustain the action, that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the reason profferred by defendant was likely a pretext for illegal discrimination ( see Scott v. Citicorp Servs., 91 N.Y.2d 823; Ferrante v. Am. Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 629; DeMay v. Miller Wrubel, 262 A.D.2d 184). Plaintiffs' claim that the court should have denied the motion for summary judgment on the ground that defendant failed to provide requested discovery is without merit since plaintiffs made no showing that the documents sought contained facts "essential to justify opposition" to the motion ( cf. Colicchio v. Port Auth. of New York New Jersey, 246 A.D.2d 464, 465).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.