SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Dr. Angelo J. Skalafuris, pro se, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee City of New York, Department of Corrections (“DOC”). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history of the case, and issues on appeal.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and conclude that Skalafuris’s arguments on appeal are without merit substantially for the reasons articulated by the district court. See Skalafuris v. City of New York, Dep’t of Corr., 09-cv-5165, 2010 WL 4273286 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.28, 2010).

Pursuant to New York State Human Rights Law (“NYHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(9) (McKinney 2010), and New York City Human Rights Law (“CHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(a), Skalafuris’s state and city claims were barred. See York v. Ass’n of Bar of City of New York, 286 F.3d 122, 127 (2d Cir. 2002) (“[B]y the terms of the statute and code, respectively, the NYHRL and CHRL claims, once *55 brought before the [New York State Department of Human Rights], may not be brought again as a plenary action in another court.”). Contrary to Skalafuris’s arguments concerning these eleetion-of-reme-dies limitations, a federal district court must apply a state’s substantive law in adjudicating a state law claim. See McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., 609 F.3d 70, 74 n. 3 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[A] state law depriving its courts of jurisdiction over a state law claim also operates to divest a federal court of jurisdiction to decide the claim.” (quoting Moodie v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., 58 F.3d 879, 884 (2d Cir. 1995))).

Skalafuris contends that the district court usurped the jury’s role as trier of fact. However, there were no genuine issues of material fact to be tried. See Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 239 F.3d 456, 466 (2d Cir. 2001) (“It is now beyond cavil that summary judgment may be appropriate even in the fact-intensive context of discrimination cases.”). The DOC concedes that Skalafuris is a member of a protected class, was qualified for the position to which he applied, and suffered an adverse employment action; the only dispute is whether the circumstances surrounding that action give rise to an inference of age discrimination. 2 They do not.

Skalafuris contends that the DOC violated various civil service rules, but fails to demonstrate any connection between these alleged violations and his allegations of age discrimination.

Skalafuris did not raise the issue of the hired candidate’s age to the district court. See Brennan v. Metro. Opera Ass’n, Inc., 192 F.3d 310, 317 (2d Cir. 1999) (leaving open the question of whether an age differential is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination). His contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that the chosen candidate was forty-four— Skalafuris was seventy-six — is unsupported by any reference to the record.

Skalafuris argues that his credentials are far superior to those of the candidate hired. See Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93, 103 (2d Cir. 2001) (“When a plaintiff seeks to prevent summary judgment on the strength of a discrepancy in qualifications ignored by an employer ... the plaintiffs credentials would have to be so superior ... that ‘no reasonable person, in the exercise of impartial judgment, could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff for the job in question.’ ”) (citations omitted). Notwithstanding the impressive features of Skalafuris’s resume, it is not at all clear that he was more qualified for the position to which he applied — which required supervisory experience in construction — than the candidate hired, a former construction supervisor.

The district court’s decision not to permit oral argument was well within its discretion. See AD/SAT, Div. of Skylight, Inc. v. Associated Press, 181 F.3d 216, 226 (2d Cir. 1999). There is no constitutional right to oral argument at summary judgment. See Greene v. WCI Holdings Corp., 136 F.3d 313, 316 (2d Cir. 1998) (per cu-riam) (“Every circuit to consider the issue has determined that the ‘hearing’ requirements of Rule 12 and Rule 56 do not mean that an oral hearing is necessary, but only require that a party be given the opportunity to present its views to the court.”).

Finding no merit in Skalafuris’s remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.