You are here: / / THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE...
, , , , ,

THE PETITIONER, A NEW YORK CITY FIREFIGHTER, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR A RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FROM THE COVID VACCINE MANDATE; SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined petitioner-firefighter did not demonstrate the NYC Fire Department (FDNY) improperly denied petitioner’s request for a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate:

Pursuant to the NYCHRL [New York City Human Rights Law], it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice” for an employer “to refuse or otherwise fail to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time with a person who has requested an accommodation” for, among other possibilities, “religious needs” (Administrative Code § 8-107[28][a][1]). Here, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the appellants’ process for resolving requests for a reasonable accommodation from the vaccine mandate did not meet the requirements of the NYCHRL regarding cooperative dialogue … . The appellants provided information on the process for reviewing accommodation requests related to the vaccine mandate and informed employees on how to appeal request denials. The record demonstrates that the petitioner availed himself of this process. The record also shows that there were multiple communications between the petitioner, the FDNY, and the [City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel] regarding the petitioner’s accommodation request. The petitioner failed to establish that, under the unique circumstances present at the time of the vaccine mandate, the NYCHRL required a more robust or individualized dialogue.

The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that the determination to deny him a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was arbitrary and capricious … . Matter of Smith v New York City Fire Dept., 2025 NY Slip Op 03728, Second Dept 6-18-25

Practice Point: Here the petitioner-firefighter had won in Supreme Court and was reinstated with back pay. But the Second Department reversed finding petitioner was not entitled to a religious exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ERRONEOUS HUSBAND AND WIFE DESIGNATION ON THE DEED CREATED A TENANCY IN COMMON, DEFENDANT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE 2ND DEPT.
ALTHOUGH THE CONDOMINIUM WAS OCCUPIED BY PLAINTIFFS’ DAUGHTER WHEN THE PIPE BROKE, THE INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO RESCIND THE POLICY BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFFS REPRESENTED THE CONDOMINIUM WOULD BE OCCUPIED BY THEM (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD PROPERLY AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES OF OVER $34,000 IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPEALS IN THIS DIVORCE CASE; HOWEVER A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO APPORTION THE FEES BETWEEN THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT).
WOOD WHICH HAD FALLEN TO THE GROUND FROM A SPLIT RAIL FENCE IS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION WHICH IS NOT ACTIONABLE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE ISSUES OF NEGLIGENCE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE WERE NOT INTERTWINED; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT THAT THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE; IN RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, THE JUDGE PROPERLY TOLD THEM THEY COULD FIND THAT THE ACCIDENT DID NOT HAPPEN (SECOND DEPT).
ONLY CONTRACTORS AND OWNERS AND THEIR AGENTS CAN BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT AN AGENT FOR ANY POTENTIALLY LIABLE PARTY BECAUSE IT EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORKSITE (SECOND DEPT).
THE TIMELY FILING OF A SECOND MECHANIC’S LIEN TO CORRECT PROBLEMS WITH THE FIRST MECHANIC’S LIEN WHICH HAD BEEN CANCELLED BY THE COURT IS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE LIEN LAW (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE FAMILY OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT REQUIRES A COURSE OF CONDUCT; A SINGLE, ISOLATED... DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN RETURN FOR A SENTENCE WHICH WAS LATER DETERMINED TO...