
    Richard MOSKOWITZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and Lawn, Mullen & Good, Defendants-Appellees.
    Docket No. 03-7697.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 23, 2004.
    
      Richard Moskowitz, Merrick, NY, for Appellant, pro se.
    David Lawrence III, Assistant Solicitor General (Michael Belohlavek, Deputy Solicitor General, of counsel, Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, on the brief), Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, New York, NY, for defendant-appellee New York State Department of Health.
    Barry Jacobs, Heller Jacobs & Kamlet, LLP, New York, NY, for defendant-appellee Lawn, Mullen & Good.
    PRESENT: KEARSE, CABRANES and KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Richard Moskowitz appeals from a judgment of the District Court granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. (“Title VII”) and New York State Executive Law § 296 (“NYHRL”). The District Court concluded that Moskowitz was not entitled to relief under either Title VII or the NYHRL because he was an independent contractor of the defendants rather than an employee.

Substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

We have considered all of plaintiffs claims on appeal and we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.  