116 F.3d 625, 640 (2d Cir.1997))); id. (“A purely lateral transfer, that is, a transfer that does not involve a demotion in form or substance cannot rise to the level of a materially adverse employment ae tion.” (quoting Williams v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 85 F.3d 270, 274 (7th Cir.1996))); Mishk v. Destefano, 5 F.Supp.2d 194, 202 (S.D.N.Y.1998) (“Plaintiffs ... transfer from [one] Unit to [another] Unit does not satisfy the adverse employment action standard in the absence of any allegation or evidence that the new position was somehow inferior to plaintiffs previous position.”). Although some contrary authority exists in cases dealing with an involuntary transfer to an identical job in an inconvenient location, see, e.g., Medwid v. Baker, 752 F.Supp. 125, 138-39 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (<HOLDING>), I have found no case in which denial of a
holding that whether an involuntary transfer from new york to los angeles was adverse was a question of fact holding it is a question of fact holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership holding that estoppel was a question of fact holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york