Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jochelman v. New York State Banking Dep't

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


November 25, 2008

IN RE IRVING JOCHELMAN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
THE NEW YORK STATE BANKING DEPARTMENT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Kibbie F. Payne, J.), entered September 7, 2007, which, in an article 78 proceeding seeking to annul respondents' determination denying petitioner a promotion to the position of Principal Bank Examiner I, granted respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition as a matter of law, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, to the extent that the petition seeks damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the ADA claim reinstated and deemed to be brought in the form of a plenary action, and the remainder of the appeal dismissed as moot. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 23, 2007, which, to the extent appealable, denied petitioner's motion to renew the petition, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Lippman, P.J., Gonzalez, Moskowitz, Acosta, Renwick, JJ.

103533/07

Prior to this appeal, petitioner was promoted to the position at issue, rendering moot that portion of his appeal seeking back pay (see Szipcek v Safir, 291 AD2d 269 [2002]). Nevertheless, petitioner's separate claim for damages related to respondents' allegedly discriminatory behavior has not been rendered moot by petitioner's promotion, and his ADA claim is not without merit as a matter of law (see Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 USCA § 12101 et seq.). The record raises factual issues as to whether respondents failed to make reasonable accommodations for petitioner's request, based on medical grounds, for alternative workspace. We therefore remand the matter for further proceedings.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20081125

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.