Yasinosky v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yasinosky v. New York City Transit Authority

193 A.D.2d 731, 598 N.Y.S.2d 52, 2 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1168, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4951

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

DecidedMay 17, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 193 A.D.2d 731 (Yasinosky v. New York City Transit Authority) 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

Yasinosky v. New York City Transit Authority, 193 A.D.2d 731, 598 N.Y.S.2d 52, 2 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1168, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4951 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination pursuant to Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Green-stein, J.), dated October 24, 1990, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly concluded that the plaintiff does not qualify as a disabled person within the purview of the Human Rights Law (see, Executive Law § 292 [21] [c]). Although, here the plaintiff was capable of performing certain tasks required of other employees assigned overtime work, his medical condition prevented him from performing the important function of [732]*732patrol duty (see, Matter of Caminiti v New York City Tr. Auth. Police Dept., 125 AD2d 306, 307). Under the circumstances, the failure to assign overtime work to him did not violate the antidiscrimination proscriptions of the Human Rights Law (see, Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 130 AD2d 579). Accordingly, the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Further, we note that the action, commenced more than three years after the alleged unlawful discrimination, is time barred (see, CPLR 214 [2]; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 307). Thompson, J. P., Fiber, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for alleged employment discrimination pursuant to Executive Law § 296, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Green-stein, J.), dated October 24, 1990, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The court properly concluded that the plaintiff does not qualify as a disabled person within the purview of the Human Rights Law (see, Executive Law § 292 [21] [c]). Although, here the plaintiff was capable of performing certain tasks required of other employees assigned overtime work, his medical condition prevented him from performing the important function of [732]*732patrol duty (see, Matter of Caminiti v New York City Tr. Auth. Police Dept., 125 AD2d 306, 307). Under the circumstances, the failure to assign overtime work to him did not violate the antidiscrimination proscriptions of the Human Rights Law (see, Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 130 AD2d 579). Accordingly, the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Further, we note that the action, commenced more than three years after the alleged unlawful discrimination, is time barred (see, CPLR 214 [2]; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 NY2d 293, 307). Thompson, J. P., Fiber, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 731, 598 N.Y.S.2d 52, 2 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1168, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4951, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yasinosky-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack