In this action the Appellate Division affirmed a Supreme Court's ruling that a prior decision denying CPLR Article 78 relief bars a subsequent plenary action where, as here, the same issues were raised, fully litigated, and necessarily decided.
Further, the Appellate Division opined that even if the above claims were not barred, the complaint fails to state a cause of action as his religious discrimination claims fail to connect Plaintiff's alleged religious beliefs to the requirement for vaccination as Plaintiff's "conclusory assertions" of discrimination are "unsupported by sufficient factual allegations".
As to Plaintiff's remaining claims, the Appellate Division concluded that these were also properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action as:
1. Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief is moot, since the City rescinded the vaccine mandate in February 2023;
2. Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is barred as against defendant City on public policy grounds; and
3. Plaintiff's claims otherwise fails to allege extreme and outrageous conduct by the individually named defendant.
4. Plaintiff's Free Exercise claim, "[Plaintiff] has no private right of action to recover damages for violations of the New York State Constitution, since the alleged wrongs could be addressed by alternative remedies, including those pursued" here under the City HRL and State HRL"
5. Plaintiff's breach of contract claim fails for lack of standing as Plaintiff "has no individual right to enforce the collective bargaining agreement".