Toth v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toth v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services

119 A.D.3d 431, 988 N.Y.S.2d 488

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2014

Docket12915 102132/12

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 119 A.D.3d 431 (Toth v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services) 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

Toth v. New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services, 119 A.D.3d 431, 988 N.Y.S.2d 488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 29, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Construing the complaint liberally, presuming its factual allegations to be true, and according the complaint the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 144-145 [1st Dept 2009]; 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 151-152 [2002]), plaintiff has not adequately plead or established a recognized disability under either the State or City Human Rights Law (HRL) (see Executive Law § 292 [21]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-102 [16] [b]). His medical proof only established that he was extremely anxious and stressed because of his daughter’s medical condition. Plaintiff also failed to adequately plead discriminatory animus which is fatal to his discrimination claims under the State and City HRL (see Matter of McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554, 558 [1994]).

We note that defendant agency is not a proper party (see NY City Charter § 396).

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Sweeny, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), entered May 29, 2013, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Construing the complaint liberally, presuming its factual allegations to be true, and according the complaint the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see Vig v New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 AD3d 140, 144-145 [1st Dept 2009]; 511 W. 232nd Owners Corp. v Jennifer Realty Co., 98 NY2d 144, 151-152 [2002]), plaintiff has not adequately plead or established a recognized disability under either the State or City Human Rights Law (HRL) (see Executive Law § 292 [21]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-102 [16] [b]). His medical proof only established that he was extremely anxious and stressed because of his daughter’s medical condition. Plaintiff also failed to adequately plead discriminatory animus which is fatal to his discrimination claims under the State and City HRL (see Matter of McEniry v Landi, 84 NY2d 554, 558 [1994]).

We note that defendant agency is not a proper party (see NY City Charter § 396).

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Sweeny, Andrias, Saxe and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 431, 988 N.Y.S.2d 488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toth-v-new-york-city-department-of-citywide-administrative-services-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack