Summary
explaining that the "elements to find disability discrimination under [NYSHRL and NYCHRL] generally track those set forth in the ADA" and that "[t]he main difference between the analysis required under the ADA as compared to the NYSHRL and NYCHRL is the standard used to define 'disability'"
Summary of this case from Kravtchouk v. City of New YorkOpinion
16-CV-04258 (AMD) (CLP)
09-26-2017
PAULINE BONNEN, Plaintiff, v. CONEY ISLAND HOSPITAL, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Ann M. Donnelly, United States District Judge :
On August 4, 2016, the pro se plaintiff, Pauline Bonnen, commenced this action against the defendant, Coney Island Hospital ("CIH"), alleging violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. (ECF No. 1.) Thereafter, on January 19, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint and add the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation ("HHC") as a defendant, as well as add claims under New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. L. § 290 et seq. and the New York City Earned Sick Time Act ("ESTA"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-914 et seq. (ECF No. 20.) On March 9. 2017, I referred this matter to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak for a report and recommendation as to whether to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss, and whether to grant the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint.
On September 6, 2017, Judge Pollak issued a report recommending that I grant in part and deny in part the plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint, and grant the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's original complaint. (ECF No. 25 at 2, 35.)
In reviewing an R&R, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where, as here, no party has objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation, "a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Urena v. New York, 160 F.Supp.2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)).
I have reviewed Judge Pollak's thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation, and find there are no legal or factual errors. Thus, I adopt the report and recommendation in its entirely.
Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's original complaint is granted; and the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint is granted to assert claims against HHC under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, but denied with prejudice to the extent the plaintiff seeks to bring claims against HHC under the FMLA or ESTA. In addition, the plaintiff's motion to amend is denied with prejudice to the extent it seeks to assert any claims against CIH.
SO ORDERED.
s/Ann M. Donnelly
Ann M. Donnelly
United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 26, 2017