Supreme Court had granted the City of New York's motion to dismiss Plaintiff complaint on the grounds that it was untimely. However, the Appellate Division subsequently opined that "The complaint should not have been dismissed as untimely. Plaintiff chose to assert claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws rather than seeking administrative review of the denial of his reasonable accommodation request, as was his right".
The Appellate Division concluded that the complaint was timely filed because Plaintiff's claims are governed by a three-year statute of limitations rather than the statutes of limitations controlling the initiating of litigation under color of the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.
Nonetheless, the Appellate Division decided that Supreme Court properly dismissed the action "because even under a lenient notice pleading standard, it fails to state a cause of action for discrimination for failure to provide an accommodation under the State or City Human Rights Laws".
The Appellate Division's ruling explained that "Plaintiff's bare allegation that taking the vaccine conflicted with the Ten Commandment's broad admonition 'thou shalt not kill' was insufficient to show that he adhered to a bona fide religious practice or doctrine that [Defendants] failed to accommodate", citing a number of decisions by New York State courts including Matter of Marsteller v City of New York, 217 AD3d 543 [appeal dismissed and leave to appeal denied 41 NY3d 960].
The Appellate Division also rejected Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant "failed to engage in a cooperative dialogue" as unavailing, again citing Matter of Marsteller v City of New York, 217 AD3d 543 [appeal dismissed and leave to appeal denied 41 NY3d 960].
With respect to Plaintiff's cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment ordering the New York City Police Department to consider and grant his application for reinstatement, the Appellate Division noted that such a request is "essentially an Article 78 claim for mandamus". In the words of the Appellate Division, "Plaintiff failed to show that defendants have a nondiscretionary duty to grant the relief requested, or that he has a clear legal right to reinstatement" and the decision not to reinstate Plaintiff is not subject to mandamus because it involves the exercise of discretion.
The Appellate Division then "unanimously affirmed" the City's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, without costs
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.