Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Irving JOCHELMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. The NEW YORK STATE BANKING DEPARTMENT, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered September 7, 2007, which, in an article 78 proceeding seeking to annul respondents' determination denying petitioner a promotion to the position of Principal Bank Examiner I, granted respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition as a matter of law, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to the extent that the petition seeks damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the ADA claim reinstated and deemed to be brought in the form of a plenary action, and the remainder of the appeal dismissed as moot. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 23, 2007, which, to the extent appealable, denied petitioner's motion to renew the petition, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.
Prior to this appeal, petitioner was promoted to the position at issue, rendering moot that portion of his appeal seeking back pay (see Szipcek v. Safir, 291 A.D.2d 269, 737 N.Y.S.2d 600 [2002] ). Nevertheless, petitioner's separate claim for damages related to respondents' allegedly discriminatory behavior has not been rendered moot by petitioner's promotion, and his ADA claim is not without merit as a matter of law (see Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 USCA § 12101 et seq.). The record raises factual issues as to whether respondents failed to make reasonable accommodations for petitioner's request, based on medical grounds, for alternative workspace. We therefore remand the matter for further proceedings.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 25, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)