Porter v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Porter v. City of New York

128 A.D.3d 448, 6 N.Y.S.3d 483

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

DecidedMay 7, 2015

Docket15039 104271/06

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 448 (Porter v. City of New York) 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

Porter v. City of New York, 128 A.D.3d 448, 6 N.Y.S.3d 483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

*449 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered November 19, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they engaged in a good faith interactive process through which they provided plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation to address her vision and reading disabilities (see Executive Law § 296; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107). Defendants were not required to provide plaintiff with the specific accommodation she preferred (Pimentel v Citibank, N.A., 29 AD3d 141, 148 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 707 [2006]). In any event, they established that plaintiffs preferred additional accommodation would not have addressed the non-visual disabilities that were impacting her job performance and preventing her from satisfying the essential requisites of her job (see Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 834, 838 [2014]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, defendant’s motion was properly granted.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Richter and Gische, JJ.

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

*449 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Margaret A. Chan, J.), entered November 19, 2013, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that they engaged in a good faith interactive process through which they provided plaintiff with a reasonable accommodation to address her vision and reading disabilities (see Executive Law § 296; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107). Defendants were not required to provide plaintiff with the specific accommodation she preferred (Pimentel v Citibank, N.A., 29 AD3d 141, 148 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 707 [2006]). In any event, they established that plaintiffs preferred additional accommodation would not have addressed the non-visual disabilities that were impacting her job performance and preventing her from satisfying the essential requisites of her job (see Jacobsen v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824, 834, 838 [2014]).

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, defendant’s motion was properly granted.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Richter and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 448, 6 N.Y.S.3d 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack