Jochelman v. New York State Banking Department

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jochelman v. New York State Banking Department

83 A.D.3d 540, 920 N.Y.S.2d 661

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 19, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 540 (Jochelman v. New York State Banking Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jochelman v. New York State Banking Department, 83 A.D.3d 540, 920 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 5, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant-appellant employer’s motion for summary judgment insofar it sought dismissal of plaintiff employee’s cause of action alleging a violation of Executive Law § 296 (3) as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant asserts that it investigated plaintiffs claimed disability and request for a reasonable accommodation, and that plaintiff caused the process to break down by refusing to supply requested medical information. However, the record contains evidence that plaintiff made an effort to substantiate his claim with medical documentation, made two requests for a reasonable accommodation, and suggested possible accommodations. According to plaintiff, defendant failed to consider his requests. Based on the conflicting evidence, Supreme Court properly determined that genuine issues of fact exist as to whether defendant engaged in the good faith interactive process required by the New York State Human Rights Law (see Executive Law § 296 [3]; see also Phillips v City of New York, 66 AD3d 170, 176 [2009]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 32750(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 5, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant-appellant employer’s motion for summary judgment insofar it sought dismissal of plaintiff employee’s cause of action alleging a violation of Executive Law § 296 (3) as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant asserts that it investigated plaintiffs claimed disability and request for a reasonable accommodation, and that plaintiff caused the process to break down by refusing to supply requested medical information. However, the record contains evidence that plaintiff made an effort to substantiate his claim with medical documentation, made two requests for a reasonable accommodation, and suggested possible accommodations. According to plaintiff, defendant failed to consider his requests. Based on the conflicting evidence, Supreme Court properly determined that genuine issues of fact exist as to whether defendant engaged in the good faith interactive process required by the New York State Human Rights Law (see Executive Law § 296 [3]; see also Phillips v City of New York, 66 AD3d 170, 176 [2009]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 32750(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 540, 920 N.Y.S.2d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jochelman-v-new-york-state-banking-department-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack