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.
Nefertari Whitney, E Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The Bronx–Lebanon Hospital Center, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
_
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lizbeth Gonzalez, J.), entered on or about December 7, 2016, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination because she failed to plead facts demonstrating that she had any “disability” within the meaning of the New York State Human Rights Law or the New York City Human Rights Law (Matter of McEniry v. Landi, 84 N.Y.2d 554, 558 [1994]; Pimentel v. Citibank, N.A., 29 AD3d 141, 145 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 707 [2006]; see Executive Law §§ 292[21][a]; 296[1][a]; Administrative Code of City of N.Y. §§ 8–102[16]; 8–107[1][a] ). Plaintiff relies solely on a nurse's note that states that plaintiff suffers from unspecified “chronic medical conditions,” and that her inability to sleep during the day was making those conditions worse. The nurse's unsworn, conclusory allegations do not suffice to defeat defendants' motion for summary judgment (Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853 [1985] ).
Because plaintiff failed to raise triable issues of fact whether she is an individual with a disability, the motion court also correctly dismissed her reasonable accommodation claim. Moreover, to the extent she ever properly requested a transfer to an earlier, evening shift, defendants were aware that there was no position available on the evening shift, and they were not required to reassign her if no position was open (Pimentel, 29 AD3d at 147–148).
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 4081
Decided: May 23, 2017
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
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)