With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". v. Cornell Univ., 584 F.3d 487, 509 (2d Cir.2009) (quoting In re Mid-Island Hosp., Inc., 276 F.3d 123, 129 (2d Cir.2002)). 101 . Kaplan, 747 N.Y.S.2d at 506. 102 . See N.Y. Labor Law § 193. 103 . Id. § 190(1). 104 . Truelove v. Northeast Capital & Advisory, Inc., 95 N.Y.2d 220, 224, 715 N.Y.S.2d 366, 738 N.E.2d 770 (2000) (noting the legislative history of § 190(1) (defining wages) generally and specifically addressing the issue of bonuses). 105 . Id. 106 . Id. 107 . See Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def. Mem.”) at 17. 108 . See id. 109 . Buekman Tr. at 306:16-307:3. 110 . See Opp. Mem. at 19-20. 111 . See Henry, 616 F.3d at 149-50. 112 . See, e.g., Dixon v. International Fed’n of Accountants, 416 Fed.Appx. 107, 110 (2d Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). 113 . See Fed.R.Evid. 802. 114 . See Henry,

A: holding that an isolated remark made by the plaintiffs supervisor lacked a sufficient nexus to the plaintiffs termination several months later
B: recognizing that stray remarks are insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination and concluding that a comment by the decisionmaker that he selected a candidate for a promotion because the candidate was a bright intelligent knowledgeable young man was a stray remark that did not raise an inference of age discrimination
C: holding that alleged reference to national origin by nondecisionmaker six months prior to plaintiffs termination was the kind of isolated stray remark insufficient without more to raise an inference of discrimination and defeat summary judgment
D: holding that an isolated derogatory remark did not create an inference of discrimination
D.