DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Assuming that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of age discrimination, the defendants met their burden of establishing that the decision not to renew his contract was based on legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons and not his age (see,Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., 90 N.Y.2d 623 ; Matter of Laverack Haines v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 88 N.Y.2d 734 ;Matter of Miller Brewing Co., v. State Div. of Human Rights, 66 N.Y.2d 937 ; Alfano v. Miller Envtl. Group, 253 A.D.2d 446 ). The plaintiff failed to raise material issues of fact as to whether the reason proffered by the defendants was pretexual (see, Ferrante v. American Lung Assn., supra).
The Supreme Court also properly dismissed the plaintiff's cause of action based on retaliation as there was no reasonable basis for him to believe that the defendants engaged in any discriminatory practice prohibited by the Executive Law (see, Executive Law § 296[1][e]; Dodd v. Middleton Lodge, 264 A.D.2d 706; [2d Dept., Sept. 13, 1999]; Matter of Electchester Hous. Project v. Rosa, 225 A.D.2d 772, 773 ).
Finally, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how further discovery might reveal the existence of material facts which would warrant the denial of summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212[f];Delaney v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 204 A.D.2d 678 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth causes of action.
SANTUCCI, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.