Plaintiff claims discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ( see Administrative Code of the City of N.Y. § 8-101, et seq.), and has made out a prima facie case ( see Brennan v. Metro. Opera Assn., 284 A.D.2d 66, 70). While defendants have set forth evidence of a legitimate, independent, nondiscriminatory reason to support the decision to terminate plaintiff's employment ( see Ferrante v. Am. Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623, 629), specifically, a reorganization ( see Brown v. Gen. Elec. Co., 144 A.D.2d 746, 747), plaintiff has responded with evidence sufficient to raise a triable question of fact as to whether the proffered reason is a mere pretext for discrimination ( Brennan, supra; and see Ferrante, 90 N.Y.2d at 630).
Since defendants have not given plaintiff a chance to respond factually to their argument on behalf of the individual defendant in reliance on Patrowich v. Chemical Bank ( 63 N.Y.2d 541, 542), made for the first time on appeal, and indeed, only in their reply brief, we do not reach it ( see 440 E. 62nd St. Owners Corp. v. 440 E. 62nd St. Assocs., 217 A.D.2d 426, 427).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.