Summary
dismissing NYSHRL claim against CUNY on the grounds that "[d]efendants are public educational institutions, and therefore are not 'education corporations or associations' under" N.Y. Exec. § 296
Summary of this case from Weiss v. City Univ. of N.Y.Opinion
300 109951/11.
02-23-2016
Minerva GARCIA, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. The CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Daniel E. Dugan of counsel), for appellant. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Karen W. Lin of counsel), for respondents.
Law Offices of Stewart Lee Karlin, P.C., New York (Daniel E. Dugan of counsel), for appellant.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Karen W. Lin of counsel), for respondents.
Opinion
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered September 26, 2014, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and denied plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve a second amended complaint, deemed an appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered October 15, 2014, and so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly dismissed plaintiff's disability discrimination claims sounding under Executive Law § 296(4) of the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL). Defendants are public educational institutions (see Education Law § 6201 et seq.), and therefore are not “education corporation[s] or association[s]” under Executive Law § 296(4) (see Matter of North Syracuse Cent. School Dist. v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 19 N.Y.3d 481, 950 N.Y.S.2d 67, 973 N.E.2d 162 2012; Kelly G. v. Board of Educ. of City of Yonkers, 99 A.D.3d 756, 758, 952 N.Y.S.2d 229 2d Dept.2012 ).
Even if plaintiff could assert her claims under the State HRL, she has failed to make out a prima facie case of disability discrimination (see Matter of McEniry v. Landi, 84 N.Y.2d 554, 558, 620 N.Y.S.2d 328, 644 N.E.2d 1019 1994 ). Among other things, plaintiff has failed to point to any medical evidence showing that she suffered from bipolar disorder, depression, or any other cognizable disability.
Plaintiff's proposed disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are similarly without merit, as ADA claims “are governed by the same legal standards” as disability discrimination claims under the State HRL (Pimentel v. Citibank, N.A., 29 A.D.3d 141, 147 n. 2, 811 N.Y.S.2d 381 1st Dept.2006, lv. denied 7 N.Y.3d 707, 821 N.Y.S.2d 813, 854 N.E.2d 1277 2006 ). Accordingly, the motion court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's cross motion for leave to assert those claims in a second amended complaint (see Eighth Ave. Garage Corp. v. H.K.L. Realty Corp., 60 A.D.3d 404, 405, 875 N.Y.S.2d 8 1st Dept.2009, lv. dismissed 12 N.Y.3d 880, 883 N.Y.S.2d 174, 910 N.E.2d 1003 2009 ).