Bagaloo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Second Circuit

Bagaloo v. New York City Department of Corrections

41 F. App'x 515

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 13, 2002

DocketDocket No. 01-9096

StatusPublished

This text of 41 F. App'x 515 (Bagaloo v. New York City Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bagaloo v. New York City Department of Corrections, 41 F. App'x 515 (2d Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Esther Bagaloo appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, Ch.J.), dismissing her claim brought under the Americans with Disabil[516]*516ities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her New York State Human Rights Law claim. The district court found that Bagaloo was not disabled under the ADA, and Bagaloo’s own account of her condition confirms that ruling. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Korman’s opinion. See Esther Bagaloo v. New York City Department of Corrections, 99-CV-1045 (E.D.N.Y. filed August 20, 2001).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Esther Bagaloo appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Korman, Ch.J.), dismissing her claim brought under the Americans with Disabil[516]*516ities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her New York State Human Rights Law claim. The district court found that Bagaloo was not disabled under the ADA, and Bagaloo’s own account of her condition confirms that ruling. Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in Judge Korman’s opinion. See Esther Bagaloo v. New York City Department of Corrections, 99-CV-1045 (E.D.N.Y. filed August 20, 2001).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F. App'x 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagaloo-v-new-york-city-department-of-corrections-ca2-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack