—[*1] Scott M. Zucker, Woodbury (Andrew B. Schultz of counsel), for appellant.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, New York (John D. Giansello of counsel), for respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered September 27, 2007, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order that granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants produced a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its termination of plaintiff, to wit, a work force reduction during which associates in plaintiff's hiring class were either promoted or reduced according to each area's needs. In response, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the reasons offered for his termination were merely pretextual (see Jordan v Bates Adv. Holdings, Inc., 46 AD3d 440 [2007], lv denied 11 NY3d 701 [2008]). Furthermore, contrary to plaintiff's contentions, defendants did not fail to reasonably accommodate his disability in violation of Executive Law § 296 (3) (a) and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107 (15) (a). Rather, there is ample evidence that defendants provided plaintiff with various accommodations to assist him with his debilitating back injury. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ. [See 17 Misc 3d 1103(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 51819(U).]