Summary
holding that issues of fact precluded summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that defendant failed to “engage in the good faith interactive process required by the [NYSHRL]”
Summary of this case from Vangas v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.Opinion
No. 4838.
April 19, 2011.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered October 5, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant-appellant employer's motion for summary judgment insofar it sought dismissal of plaintiff employee's cause of action alleging a violation of Executive Law § 296 (3) as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Richard Dearing of counsel), for appellant.
Allegaert Berger Vogel LLP, New York (Robert F. Finkelstein of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Defendant asserts that it investigated plaintiffs claimed disability and request for a reasonable accommodation, and that plaintiff caused the process to break down by refusing to supply requested medical information. However, the record contains evidence that plaintiff made an effort to substantiate his claim with medical documentation, made two requests for a reasonable accommodation, and suggested possible accommodations. According to plaintiff, defendant failed to consider his requests. Based on the conflicting evidence, Supreme Court properly determined that genuine issues of fact exist as to whether defendant engaged in the good faith interactive process required by the New York State Human Rights Law ( see Executive Law § 296; see also Phillips v City of New York, 66 AD3d 170, 176).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
[Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 32750(U).]