GOOLSBY v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2025)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Hasa A. Kingo, J.), entered March 6, 2024, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly dismissed plaintiff's claim for failure to engage in cooperative dialogue under the New York City Human Rights Law (N.Y.CHRL) (see generally Administrative Code of City of N.Y. §§ 8–102, 8–107[28][a], [e];  Hosking v. Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Ctr., 186 A.D.3d 58, 66, 126 N.Y.S.3d 98 [1st Dept. 2020]).  This Court has held that defendant's process for reviewing accommodation requests related to the Covid–19 vaccination mandate was sufficient to satisfy the NYCHRL's cooperative dialogue requirement (see Matter of Marsteller v. City of New York, 217 A.D.3d 543, 192 N.Y.S.3d 18 [1st Dept. 2023], lv denied 41 N.Y.3d 960, 208 N.Y.S.3d 529, 232 N.E.3d 207 [2024]).  Plaintiff took full advantage of this process, requesting exemptions on multiple grounds, pursing an appeal from the denial of this request, and submitting additional documentation raising additional grounds for an exemption after determination of this appeal, all of which was considered by defendant.  Defendant was not required to consider the portion of plaintiff's doctor's opinion relating to myocardial inflammation, as it was equivocal in nature and did not reference any actual diagnosis of myocarditis.

The motion court also properly dismissed plaintiff's claim for failure to accommodate under the NYCHRL because plaintiff failed to demonstrate a nexus between the alleged disability (Wolff–Parkinson–White Syndrome) and the need for an exemption from the vaccination mandate, as documentary evidence established that the resultant risk of arrhythmia was not a contraindication to vaccination or an approved basis for a temporary medical exemption therefrom (see generally Administrative Code of City of N.Y. §§ 8–102, 8–107[15][a]–[b];  Miloscia v. B.R. Guest Holdings LLC, 33 Misc.3d 466, 474, 928 N.Y.S.2d 905 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2011], affd in part and mod in part on other grounds by 94 A.D.3d 563, 942 N.Y.S.2d 484 [1st Dept. 2012]).  In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' arguments with respect to the sufficiency of plaintiff's allegations that he could perform the essential functions of his job with such an accommodation.

Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint was properly denied because the proposed additional factual allegations did not cure the deficiencies in the original complaint (see generally CPLR 3025[b];  Ferrer v. Go N.Y. Tours Inc., 221 A.D.3d 499, 500, 198 N.Y.S.3d 345 [1st Dept. 2023]).  To the extent plaintiff sought to add parallel claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (N.Y.SHRL) based on the same facts, because the NYCHRL is construed more liberally than the NYSHRL, if plaintiff's claims failed under the former, they would necessarily fail under the latter (see generally Hosking, 186 A.D.3d at 66, 126 N.Y.S.3d 98;  Vig v. New York Hairspray Co., L.P., 67 A.D.3d 140, 145, 885 N.Y.S.2d 74 [1st Dept. 2009];  Miloscia, 33 Misc.3d at 474 n. 2, 928 N.Y.S.2d 905;  Elliott v. City of NY, 723 F.Supp.3d 249, 269 n. 9 [S.D.N.Y.2024]).