ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

December 07, 2023

Plaintiff's tort claims, claims of violations of the New York City Human Rights Law and allegations that he was forced him to retire from his position dismissed

Plaintiff, a former detective with the New York City Police Department [NYPD], commenced this action against the defendants [Defendants] alleging a number of tort claims and claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and alleged that Defendants' conduct forced him to retire from the NYPD.

Citing General Municipal Law §50-e and Umeh v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 205 AD3d 599, the Appellate Division held that Plaintiff's tort claims were properly dismissed as untimely as he failed to file a notice of claim within 90 days of their accrual.

In contrast, the Appellate Division held that Plaintiff "has sufficiently alleged that Defendants failed to accommodate his disability under the New York City Human Rights Law in that his complaint alleges that Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's medical problems after his being hospitalized for COVID-19, but failed to engage him in a good-faith interactive process to assess his needs and consider his request to work from home.

These allegations, said the court, coupled with his allegation that he would have continued working if his request for reasonable accommodation was granted, are sufficient to state a cognizable claim for failure to accommodate his disability under the City's Human Rights Law.

Notwithstanding this, the Appellate Division held that Plaintiff's discrimination claim was properly dismissed, explaining "the complaint fails to allege that 'Plaintiff' was 'treated less well' or 'disadvantaged' because of his disability".

Addressing Plaintiff's retaliation claim, the court said "vague, generalized complaints" about a NYPD physician's treatment of him to an unspecified person or authority do not constitute protected activity nor did Plaintiff allege facts showing that Defendants "took an action that disadvantaged [him]" after his complaining about alleged discriminatory conduct.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet

 

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
New York Public Personnel Law. Email: publications@nycap.rr.com