Opinion
May 17, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The court properly concluded that the plaintiff does not qualify as a disabled person within the purview of the Human Rights Law (see, Executive Law § 292 [c]). Although, here the plaintiff was capable of performing certain tasks required of other employees assigned overtime work, his medical condition prevented him from performing the important function of patrol duty (see, Matter of Caminiti v New York City Tr. Auth. Police Dept., 125 A.D.2d 306, 307). Under the circumstances, the failure to assign overtime work to him did not violate the antidiscrimination proscriptions of the Human Rights Law (see, Matter of Miller v Ravitch, 130 A.D.2d 579). Accordingly, the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Further, we note that the action, commenced more than three years after the alleged unlawful discrimination, is time barred (see, CPLR 214; Murphy v American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 307). Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.