You are here: / / DEFENDANT EMPLOYER’S FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN COOPERATIVE DIALOGUE REGARDING...
, , ,

DEFENDANT EMPLOYER’S FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN COOPERATIVE DIALOGUE REGARDING ACCOMMODATION FOR THE DISABLED PLAINTIFF WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S NYC HUMAN RIGHTS LAW CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the disabled plaintiff was intitled to summary judgment on his NYC Human Rights Law claim because defendant-employer failed to engage in a cooperative dialogue regarding accommodation for his disability:

… [P]laintiff is entitled to summary judgment on his City HRL claim based on defendant’s failure to engage, within a reasonable time, in a cooperative dialogue regarding his accommodation, as the record presents no issues of fact as to defendant’s failure to engage plaintiff in a cooperative dialogue once defendant became aware of his condition (see Administrative Code of City of NY §§ 8-102; 8-107[28][a] …). Contrary to defendant’s contention, an employer’s failure “to engage in a good faith interactive process is . . . independently actionable under the [City] HRL” … . Kocher v Mount Sinai Hosp., 2026 NY Slip Op 06007, First Dept 10-15-26

Practice Point: An employer’s failure to engage in cooperative dialogue with a disabled worker about accommodation for the disability violates the NYC Human Rights Law.

 

You might also like
Lateral Shift of Heavy Equipment, Which Pinned Plaintiff Against a Column, Not Gravity-Related—Not Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)
THE FAILURE TO MENTION THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE ON THE VERDICT SHEET WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL BY AN OBJECTION AND THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE APPELLATE JURISDICTION WILL NOT BE INVOKED WHERE THERE WAS AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT (FIRST DEPT).
WHERE THERE IS NO FRAUD ON THE LANDLORD’S PART, THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL CANNOT LOOK BACK FURTHER THAN THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS PERIOD IN THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW TO DETERMINE THE BASE RENT FOR CALCULATING AN OVERCHARGE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF COULD NOT MOVE TO DISQUALIFY LAW FIRMS WHICH NEVER REPRESENTED PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
Unsworn Juror Properly Dismissed Based Upon the “Two-Hour-Trial-Delay” Rule
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY HIS BURDEN TO PROVE HIS INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY A PARTICULAR TRAIN AND THE OPERATOR OF THE TRAIN WAS NEGLIGENT; GRANT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AFFIRMED.
IN THE CONTEXT OF A CONTRACT IMPOSING CAPS FOR “NONWILLFUL” AND “WILLFUL” BREACHES, THE FACT THAT THE BREACH MAY HAVE BEEN DELIBERATE DID NOT RENDER THE BREACH “WILLFUL,” WHICH SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO REFER TO “TRULY HARMFUL, CULPABLE CONDUCT;” SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
INDICTMENT COUNT CHARGING 20 INDIVIDUAL INSTANCES OF CONTEMPT WAS DUPLICITOUS, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST 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

DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SERVE A LATE ANSWER WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION;... HERE THE BORROWER DIED AND DEFENDANT INHERITED THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE BORROWER’S...