Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Albany

N.D. New York

Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Albany

854 F. Supp. 112, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6226, 1994 WL 190017

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. New York

DecidedMay 12, 1994

DocketNo. 92-CV-1683

StatusPublished

This text of 854 F. Supp. 112 (Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Albany) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oxford House, Inc. v. City of Albany, 854 F. Supp. 112, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6226, 1994 WL 190017 (N.D.N.Y. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

DECISION and ORDER

MeAVOY, Chief Judge.

NOW, upon reading the notice of motion, and the memorandum of law in support of and in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, and upon hearing oral arguments on May 9,1994, and after due deliberation having been had thereon, it is hereby

ORDERED, that defendant’s motion be granted and plaintiffs’ claims arising out of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed.

It is here noted that during oral argument, counsel for plaintiffs argued that the Code of Federal Regulations for § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act required the court to take into account “reasonable accommodation” when determining whether plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the second element of their prima, facie case under the said Act. As stated in this court’s bench decision on May 9, 1994, the second element of plaintiffs’ pri-ma facie case requires a showing that plaintiffs’ be “otherwise qualified” to receive the benefits in question. It is clear from case law and the language of the Code of Federal Regulations itself that the requirement of “reasonable accommodation” only applies to employment cases. See Gilbert v. Frank, 949 F.2d 637, 641 (2d Cir.1991); 45 C.F.R. § 84.-3(k).¹ It does not apply to cases such as the one at hand. Thus, plaintiffs’ contention is groundless.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

DECISION and ORDER

MeAVOY, Chief Judge.

NOW, upon reading the notice of motion, and the memorandum of law in support of and in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, and upon hearing oral arguments on May 9,1994, and after due deliberation having been had thereon, it is hereby

ORDERED, that defendant’s motion be granted and plaintiffs’ claims arising out of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be dismissed.

It is here noted that during oral argument, counsel for plaintiffs argued that the Code of Federal Regulations for § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act required the court to take into account “reasonable accommodation” when determining whether plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged the second element of their prima, facie case under the said Act. As stated in this court’s bench decision on May 9, 1994, the second element of plaintiffs’ pri-ma facie case requires a showing that plaintiffs’ be “otherwise qualified” to receive the benefits in question. It is clear from case law and the language of the Code of Federal Regulations itself that the requirement of “reasonable accommodation” only applies to employment cases. See Gilbert v. Frank, 949 F.2d 637, 641 (2d Cir.1991); 45 C.F.R. § 84.-3(k).¹ It does not apply to cases such as the one at hand. Thus, plaintiffs’ contention is groundless.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

854 F. Supp. 112, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6226, 1994 WL 190017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oxford-house-inc-v-city-of-albany-nynd-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack