The following efile papers numbered EF 1-16 submitted and considered on this Petition designated as motion sequence #1 by Petitioners seeking to convene a summary judicial inquiry on the questions and issues set forth in the Petition pursuant to New York City Charter §1109; directing the witness(es) listed in the petition to appear in court (and any other witnesses who are necessary to address the questions and issues set forth in the Petition); hearing testimony in response to questions from attorneys from both Petitioners and Respondents; causing testimony to be reduced to a writing and recorded and filed with the Queens County Clerk; awarding Petitioners their costs of this proceeding including reasonable attorney's fees; and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Petitioners are six (6) current members of the City Council of the City of New York ("the Council"): Honorables Joann Ariola, Council Member for District 32, and current Minority Leader of the Council (Queens); Kristy Marmorato, Council Member for District 13 (Bronx); Inna Vernikov, Council Member for District 48 (Brooklyn); Vickie Paladino, Council Member for District 19 (Queens), and Council Minority Whip; David Carr, Council Member for District 50 (Staten Island, Brooklyn); and Robert Holden, Council Member for District 30 (Queens)

The efiled papers numbered EF 17-31 and 33-35 submitted and considered on this motion sequence #2 by respondents The City of New York; Former Mayor Bill DeBlasio; Former New York City Police Department Commissioners Dermot Shea, Keechant Sewell, and Edward Caban; Former New York City Fire Department Commissioners Daniel A. Nigro and Laura Kavanagh; New York City Fire Department Deputy Commissioner of Legal Affairs Don Nguyen; New York City Law Department Managing Attorney Eric Eichenholtz(as "architect of Citywide Appeal Panel"); Former Commissioner of the NYC Citywide Administrative Services Dawn Pinnock; The Department of Citywide Administrative Services Panelists for Appeals; New York City Corporation Counsel (former Acting Corporation Counsel) Muriel Goode-Trufant; Former New York City Corporation Counsel Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix; Former New York City Law Department Deputy Chief of Labor and Employment Law Division Ivan Mendez; Former Commissioner of the NYC Citywide Administrative Services Lisette Camilo; Former Commissioners of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene Ashwin Vasan, Dave A. Chokshi, and Oxiris Barbot; Former Senior Public Health Advisor to Mayor DeBlasio Jay Varma(sued herein as "COVID Czar"); Former New York City Department of Education Chancellors David C. Banks, Richard Carranza, and Meisha Porter; and Police Officer Kimberly Lucas of Brooklyn's 70th Precinct (collectively referred to as "Respondents), seeking an Order pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 3211(a)(7) dismissing the Petition on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. The oral argument of these applications held on April 21, 2025 (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 38)

As set forth below, the Petitioners' petition is denied in its entirety, and the Respondents' motion to dismiss is granted.

Papers/Numbered

Motion Sequence #1

Motion Sequence #2

New York City Charter ("Charter") §1109 was added as a new section of the Charter in 1961, and amended in 1975, 1977, 1989 and 1994. It provides:

A summary inquiry into any alleged violation or neglect of duty in relation to the property, government or affairs of the city may be conducted under an order to be made by any justice of the supreme court in the first, second or eleventh judicial district on application of the mayor, the comptroller, the public advocate, any five council members, the commissioner of investigation or any five citizens who are taxpayers, supported by affidavit to the effect that one or more officers, employees or other persons therein named have knowledge or information concerning such alleged violation or neglect of duty. Such inquiry shall be conducted before and shall be controlled by the justice making the order or any other justice of the supreme court in the same district. Such justice may require any officer or employee or any other person to attend and be examined in relation to the subject of the inquiry. Any answers given by a witness in such inquiry shall not be used against such witness in any criminal proceeding, except that for all false answers on material points such witness shall be subject to prosecution for perjury. The examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be filed in the office of the clerk of such county within the first, second or eleventh judicial district as the justice may direct, and shall be a public record.

In bringing this Petition, Petitioners seek answers to the following questions and related to the following topics:

a. Examination of the Executive Branch's violations and actions that stripped NYC citizens of their federal and state constitutional rights;

b. Examination of the UFT's role in shutting down the schools and its connections to the [*2]Executive Branch;

c. Examination of the Executive Branch's rules and guidance with regard to the enforcement of a citywide lockdown, which stripped every NYC citizen of liberty, due process, and their right to work;

d. Examination and determination of whether the lockdowns were for political purposes or medical necessity;

e. Employees' due process rights and their employers' violations of the law and neglect of duties in connection with the change to the reasonable accommodation process, specifically for the COVID-19 lockdowns;

f. Violations and neglect of duties concerning Respondents' failure, during and after the COVID-19 lockdown, to train NYC Law Department attorneys and NYC agency supervisors adequately on the appropriate guidelines for the reasonable accommodation procedure and process under the New York State Constitution, New York State Human Rights Law, and NYC Human Rights Law, including why the City thought it was proper to close houses of worship;

g. Violations and neglect of duties in connection with applying the wrong hardship federal standard of "de minimis" instead of the legally correct New York standard of "significant" burden for the benefit of NYC workers to determine whether an accommodation could be provided;

h. Violations and neglect of duties related to advising employees that engaging in the legally mandated "cooperative dialogue" was unnecessary for any requests concerning the COVID-19 lockdown;

i. Violations and neglect of duties associated with the discriminatory treatment of city and private workers based on their employment and economic status;

j. Violations and neglect of duties related to the City rewarding its employees with promotions and raises for intentionally infringing upon the New York State constitutional rights, New York State human rights, and NYC human rights of NYC employees; and

k. Potential collusion and cooperation between the Mayor's office, the NYC Unions, the New York State Court System, the Citywide Appeals Board, and Scheinman Arbitration & Mediation Services to deprive NYC residents their right to due process, their United States constitutional rights, and their New York State constitutional rights.

The Petitioners seek transparency on the New York City Vaccine Mandate ("Vaccine Mandate") implemented on October 20, 2021 by the former New York City Department of Health Commissioner. According to the Petitioners, the Vaccine Mandate required all City employees, not subject to an exemption, to provide proof of at least one (1) dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The Order further added that "[n]othing in this Order shall be construed to prohibit any reasonable accommodation otherwise required by law."

Petitioners contend that the Respondents changed the accommodation process. The NYC Equal Employment Opportunity ("NYC EEO") Policy requires that reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs, observations and practices be flexible and interactive involving the individual making the request and relevant agency representatives. According to Petitioners, the NYC EEO representative was to notify the individual of whether or not their request was granted and if the request was impracticable the agency was to find a reasonable alternative accommodation unless such accommodation created an undue hardship (too costly or disruptive [*3]to job performance). However, Petitioners contend that Respondents created, without legislative input, a more stringent "sincerely held religious, moral or ethical belief" standard as a basis for the reasonable accommodation.

Furthermore, Petitioners contend, that rather than applying the undue hardship standard in its determination of whether an accommodation could not be provided, the Respondents applied the less stringent "de minimis" or minimal cost to accommodate standard, without legislative input. According to Petitioners, at the appellate level, denials of COVID-19 related requests for reasonable accommodations were handled by a citywide Vaccine Mandate Reasonable Accommodation Appeal panel which was denying all appeals in violation of the NYC Human Rights Law, the New York State Constitution, the United States Constitution, the New York State Human Rights Law and common law. Petitioners contend that typically, when an appeal is denied, the applicant receives a decision in writing; but the panel created for COVID-19 related accommodations failed to provide detailed justifications for their denials in violation of NYC Administrative Code § 8-107(28)(d).

Petitioners claim there was a violation of the New York State Equal Protection Clause in that there was disparate treatment based on economic and religious status. Specifically, Petitioners contend that wealthy unvaccinated individuals were allowed to resume their jobs, but working class New York City residents were not. Furthermore, the NYPD kept separate records for accommodations sought on a religious and non-religious basis.

As it relates to the vaccines, Petitioners further contend that the Respondents falsely advertised that the vaccine was 100% safe and failed to inform citizens of the potential dangers or adverse effects of the vaccines. However, the Petitioners contend, respondent Jay Varma recently admitted that the vaccine was never medically necessary, and was allegedly partying at drug fueled parties during the COVID-19 lockdown.

Unrelated to the Vaccine Mandate and in relation to the shutdown or New York State on PAUSE Executive Order, the Petitioners contend that the Respondents violated First Amendment rights by shutting down Churches and Synagogues but leaving open non-secular businesses such as liquor stores.^[FN1]

In opposition and in support of their motion, Respondents contend that the Petitioners application amounts to an inquiry into matters of policy (see Gwen Carr v Bill De Blasio et al., 197 AD3d 124, 142 [1st Dept 2021]). Respondents further contend that the issues are moot, as Plaintiff seeks a summary inquiry related to the Vaccine Mandate which is no longer in effect, and that consequently, this matter is non-justiciable, and an improper subject for summary inquiry (see id). Additionally, Respondents contend that the Petitioner refers to the lockdown imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic known as New York State on PAUSE, but explains that this policy was imposed by then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, and as such, cannot be subject to a summary inquiry pursuant to New York City Charter §1109. Finally, Respondent contends the Petitioner failed to meet the standard set forth in Carr v De Blasio as explained herein.

"When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and in considering such a motion, the court must accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory... a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR3211(a)(7) must be denied unless it has been shown that a material fact as claimed by the pleader to be one is not a fact at all and unless it can be said that no significant dispute exists regarding it. The burden never shifts to the nonmoving party to rebut a defense asserted by the moving party." (See Quiroz v Zottola, 96 AD3d 1035 [2d Dept 2012] [internal citations omitted]; see Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d 1180 [2d Dept 2010]).

The Court herein begins its analysis of the petition in this case by examining Carr v De Blasio, which Petitioners cite in support of the core of their argument that granting or denying of a petition for a summary inquiry is a matter of judicial discretion. Petitioners further rely upon Carr to contend that the Court should give liberal construction to §1109.

In Carr, the respondent city and city officials appealed form an order of the trial court which denied their motion to dismiss the petition brought pursuant to the New York City Charter §1109 and granted the petition (id at 125). In March of 2014, New York City Police Department ("NYPD") Lieutenant Christopher Bannon ("Bannon") was investigating the sale of untaxed cigarettes in Thompsonville, Staten Island, and between March and July, the NYPD made multiple arrests, two of which were of Eric Garner (id at 126).

On July 17, 2014, Bannon was driving when he saw ten (10) people huddled together, and he believed that the people were engaged in the illegal sale of untaxed cigarettes. Bannon did not see any cigarettes being sold, but he directed that Officer D'Amico ("D'Amico") be dispatched to the area with another officer to determine if his suspicions were true (id at 127). D'Amico and Officer Pantaleo ("Pantaleo") responded and conducted surveillance from an unmarked car 200-300 feet from where they observed Eric Garner and another individual talking near a beauty supply shop (id). D'Amico observed a sale, but Pantaleo did not. Thereafter, D'Amico observed a second sale, and again Pantaleo did not (id). Nonetheless, the officers approached Garner and advised him that he was being arrested for selling untaxed cigarettes, which Garner denied. Garner advised that he was breaking up a fight—a claim later corroborated by two witnesses (id).

D'Amico attempted to persuade Garner to comply, but Garner, based upon prior arrests, believed he was being harassed and refused to be handcuffed; and a struggle ensued (id). Two other officers approached, and Pantaleo placed Garner in a chokehold as he and D'Amico placed Garner on the ground. Pantaleo applied the chokehold for "a number of seconds" as two more officers arrived (id). Video footage showed that after Pantaleo released Garner from the chokehold, he pushed Garner's head onto the sidewalk while other officers piled on top of him covering his entire body. Pantaleo testified that he heard Garner "wheezing and stating at least 11 times, 'I can't breathe,' as he lay on the sidewalk" (id). Thereafter, Garner's words became labored, and he fell silent. Garner was eventually rolled onto his side and was observed by one of the officers to have labored breathing and a pulse, the officer called for EMS to be contacted (id at 128) However, officers did not believe that Garner needed medical attention. Sgt Saminath arrived on the scene and made a second call to EMS and directed that Garner be searched, a total [*4]of 95 cigarettes were found on his person bearing Virginia tax stamps (id). EMS arrived five minutes after Garner was taken to the ground and officers assisted in getting him into the ambulance (id). The ambulance drove for about 5 minutes before it pulled over and waited for paramedics to arrive. Upon arrival, the paramedics used a defibrillator and began CPR (id). Garner was taken to the hospital where he received CPR and was intubated but he later died at the hospital.

During the administrative trial it was revealed that Saminath returned to the precinct from the hospital and "texted Banon to inform him that Garner had 'resisted' and 'might be DOA'. Bannon asked if it was 'for the smokes.' Saminath answered, 'Yea[h]' adding that Pantaleo 'grabbed him [and] they both fell down.' Bannon replied, 'Not a big deal, we were effecting a lawful arrest'" (id). D'Amico processed the arrest papers, drew up the charges, documented that "no force" was used and under "top charge" wrote a violation of Tax Law § 1814(a) a class E felony that requires an attempt to evade the tax on 10, 000 or more cigarettes (id). The following day, the Chief Medical Examiner ("CME") performed an autopsy, ruled Garner's death a homicide and found the cause of death to be "'compression of the neck, chokehold, chest compression, [and] prone positioning during physical restraint by police.'" (id at 129). The CME found that the chokehold made it difficult for Garner to breathe which triggered his asthma attack and led to his death (id).

On the same day, the NYPD Internal Affairs Bureau ("IAB") commenced an investigation which included a patrol guide procedure hearing with respect to 21 officers, 11 of which were at the scene and 5 of which were subject to investigation (id). The IAB found that Pantaleo applied a chokehold maneuver that was previously banned and recommended disciplinary charges (id). Thereafter, the Richmond County DA investigated but a grand jury voted not to indict Pantaleo. In 2014, the US Department of Justice ("DOJ") conducted a civil rights investigation. In 2018, the DOJ, in response to a foil request, advised that it would not object to disciplinary proceedings moving forward (despite the NYPD and City's representation that they could not bring charges due to the DOJ investigation). Ultimately, in 2019 the DOJ announced it would not bring charges against Pantaleo (id). During this time, the Comptroller settled the civil case with Garner's family (id). Additionally, the Civilian Complaint Review Board ("CCRB") also investigated the conduct of the officers at the scene and found that Pantaleo had used a prohibited chokehold. In 2017, The CCRB recommended NYPD charges and an administrative trial.

In July of 2018, the NYPD served Pantaleo with charges based on the CCRB report. A departmental trial was held in May and June of 2019 (id at 130). Following the trial the administrative law judge prepared a 45-page report and recommendations finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Pantaleo was guilty of third-degree assault and recommended his termination. Pantaleo was terminated in August of 2019 (id).

The Petitioners brought the Petition herein, contending that there were numerous significant unresolved issues; they sought a summary inquiry into violations and neglect of duties into seven areas (id at 131).

(1) the stop and arrest of Garner and the force used by officers on him;

(2) the failure, after Garner's death, to train NYPD officers adequately as to appropriate guidelines for the use of force and the prohibition on the use of chokeholds;

(3) filing false official NYPD documents concerning the arrest and making false statements in connection with NYPD's internal investigation of Garner's death;

(4) unlawfully leaking Garner's alleged arrest and medical histories;

(5) incomplete and inaccurate statements to the media by the City concerning Garner's arrest;

(6) the medical care provided to Garner; and

(7) the City's investigation and adjudication of, and imposition of discipline for the foregoing, including false statements by NYPD officers concerning the arrest. (citing id at 130).

The court explained that §1109 can be utilized to obtain a summary inquiry into all forms of official misconduct involving "violation or neglect of duty (see id at 136). According to the court, "Violation of duty means an infraction or contravention of the law or a duty, while neglect of duty means the outright omission of performance of duty . . . mere allegations of acts that amount to administrative inefficiency, deficiency or mismanagement will not suffice" (id [internal citations omitted]). However, despite the broad scope, it is a mechanism that is applied sparingly and must not be utilized "where other mechanisms for achieving its goal of transparency have been employed or are reasonably available". In deciding whether or not to hold a summary inquiry, courts have considered three factors: "(1) the importance of the issue that would be subject of the inquiry; (2) the pendency of ongoing investigations or lack thereof; and (3) whether the violations and neglect of duties have been fully explored in the public" (id at 137 [internal citations omitted]).

As it relates to the first prong, the court agreed with the trial court finding that the issue surrounding the death of an unarmed civilian at the hands of public officials is an important issue (id ).

However, the respondents argued that the petitioners could not satisfy the second or third prong as the death of Garner was extensively investigated and reported. The court disagreed, noting that the respondent was conflating publicity with transparency (id). As it related to topic 1 of the 7 topics (listed above) that the petitioners sought to be subject to a summary inquiry, the court noted there were no findings as to the propriety of the officers, other than Pantaleo, who were at the scene and involved in the arrest and taking Garner to the ground despite the fact that this conduct implicates constitutional and statutory provisions governing cause for arrest and use of force to effectuate arrest (id).

As it relates to topic three, the court reasoned there was no investigation or subsequent finding regarding the false filings and statement connected to this incident including D'Amico's report that "no force" was used and claim that the top charge was a class E felony involving an attempt to evade tax on 10, 000 or more cigarettes despite the fact that only 95 cigarettes were found on Garner's person and the fact that such false filing may have been a direct violation of the penal law, the New York City Charter and the Patrol Guide (id at 138).

As to topic four, the court explained that there were multiple published news articles that contained nonpublic information about Garner's arrest and medical history which would be a potential violation of provisions governing the disclosure of criminal records and the Patrol Guide. Despite respondents' contention that inquiry into topic 4 would be a mere fishing [*5]expedition because petitioners failed to identify a potential conduit for the information, the court found that the respondents themselves pointed to one individual who possessed the information, the President of the Police Benevolent Association, raising questions about who conveyed the confidential information to him (id).

As to topic six, the court noted that officers are required "to render medical aid to persons 'requiring care due to arrest'" (id at 139 [internal citations omitted]). Despite this and despite the fact that Garner was displaying labored/shallow breathing and unresponsiveness the NYPD merely rolled him on his side, confirmed his pulse and summoned an ambulance. The records does not indicate that any investigation was completed as it relates to the rendering of medical care (id).

The court rejected the respondents' contention that FOIL requests are a more viable option, as petitioners demonstrated the respondents' lack of response to their FOIL requests and the limited nature of the same. (id). Nonetheless, the court further noted that the availability of alternative avenues does not preclude a summary inquiry (id).

Respondents further argued that a summary inquiry would violate the separation of powers doctrine. The court found that all applications must be viewed on their merits, based upon the relevant factors, particulars facts and circumstances. "Thus, a summary inquiry into areas that do not touch upon policy determinations . . . , but merely deal[s] with administrative matters, will not violate the separation of powers doctrine, as it does not seek general oversight . . . concerning these issues and merely attempts to create a public record of [the] means and methods employed" (id [internal citations omitted]).

Ultimately, the court found that a summary inquiry was warranted because this was "a rare case in which allegations of significant violations of duty and a clear lack of substantial investigations and public explanation" conjoined to warrant the granting of a summary inquiry (id at 142). Thus, the court affirmed the trial courts granting of summary inquiry into topics 1-6 (id).

Here, Petitioners argue, as it relates to the first element set forth in Carr as to what should be considered for granting or denying a summary inquiry (the importance of the issue in question), that the removal of civil liberties and rights such as to gather, to speak, to worship on the basis of religion or to protest along with the denial of due process, the unilateral modification of the reasonable accommodations process and the firing of New York City Residents for failure to obtain the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine are of great importance. Petitioners emphasize that the former COVID-19 "Czar" and respondent herein, Jay Varma, recently admitted that he attended drug fueled parties during the pandemic and admitted that there was no scientific or medical basis for the lockdown.

According to Petitioners, as it relates to the second element of consideration as set forth in Carr (the pendency of ongoing investigations or the lack thereof), the policy process lacked transparency, including transparency as to the reason for the imposition of a Vaccine Mandate; the reason for the imposition of a lockdown was imposed; the reason wealthy New York City residents and mayoral political donors were granted exemptions; those who served as members of the Citywide Appeal Panel; the subject of the panel's private remote hearings; and the reason religious groups such as Catholics and Hasidic Jews were "targeted."

Finally, as it relates to third prong for consideration of a summary inquiry as established in Carr (whether the violations have been fully explored in the public), Petitioners contend that the change on the reasonable accommodation process was a neglect/violation of duty as it violated the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Petitioners further argue that the failure to train the City Law Department and provide proper guidance on determinations related to reasonable accommodation was a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In opposition, Respondents contend that they had nothing to do with New York State on PAUSE and the resulting lockdown, as that was imposed by then-Governor Andrew Cuomo. Beyond that, however, Respondents argue that in another matter in which there was a petition seeking to convene a summary judicial inquiry regarding a COVID-19 policy, the Appellate Division, First Department found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's declining to grant the petition. In Matter of Andrea Biro et al. v. Eric Leroy et al. (235 AD3d 403 [1st Dept 2025]), the petitioners sought a §1109 summary judicial inquiry regarding the "Key to NYC" program, which required COVID-19 vaccinations for indoor settings such as entertainment and dining (id at 403). The petitioner alleged Mayor Eric Adams violated his duties and oath of office by enforcing the program and that District Attorney Alvin Bragg violated his duties by failing to act after being alerted of the crime committed by the Mayor (id). The First Department affirmed the trial court the action due to defects in the petition but noted that there was no clear abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to deny the petition on its merits.

The Respondents further argue that the Petition violates the separation of powers doctrine as pursuant to their affidavits Petitioners seek "a summary judicial inquiry into the Respondents' violations and neglect of the law relating to reasonable accommodation policies and procedures applicable to the COVID-19 vaccine accommodation procedures and lockdown" (see NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 3-8). As noted in Carr, §1109 does not allow for summary inquiry's that touch on policy determination (see Carr at 139).

As to the Carr factors, Respondents argue that Petitioners have failed to allege facts that satisfy all three prongs.

As to the first point of consideration for the court on whether to grant a petition for summary inquiry, Respondents contend that the Petitioners have failed to establish that the Respondents' determinations of reasonable accommodations requests for exemptions to the vaccine mandate are of any significance to the public. Respondents argue that the Petitioners merely seek to relitigate issues that their counsel has previously brought in dozens of unsuccessful legal proceedings at the local and appellate level.

As to the second prong for consideration, Respondents contend that the issue has been litigated and continues to be litigated at the trial and appellate levels. In support of this contention, Respondents point to several matters including but not limited to New Yorkers for Religious Liberty v. City of New York (125 F.4th 319 [2d Cir. 2024]), where petitioners, DOE employees, sought to challenge New York City's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for DOE staff. The court reiterated its holding in Michael Kane et al. v Bill De Blasio et al. (19 F.4th 152, 164 [2d Cir. 2021]) that the "Vaccine Mandate, in all its iterations, [wa]s neutral [,] generally applicable, and facially constitutional under the Free Exercise clause" (Religious Liberty at 330).

Respondents also point to New York City Mun. Labor Comm. v City of New York et al. (156 NYS3d 681,684 [Sup Ct, New York County 2021, Love, L.]) where the petitioner sought to vacate the Vaccine Mandate for DOE employees because it violated substantive due process [*6]rights by threatening personal autonomy. The court found that "public health concerns far outweigh the concerns of a few" (id at 688) and held "[i]t is undisputed that the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene had the authority to issue the Order. Further, this Court cannot and will not substitute Petitioner's judgment for that of New York City's public health experts, especially where, as here, Petitioners submit no medical documentation" (id at 690). In support of this holding the court cited to several decisions at both the federal and state level that held that a mandatory vaccine requirement does not violate substantive due process right and falls within the State's police power (id at 626 see Phillips v City of New York, 775 F. 3d 538, 542 [2d Cir. 2015]; see also C.F. v New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 191 AD3d 52, 69 [2d Dept 2020])

Respondents argue the Vaccine Mandate has been subject to several investigations and any new investigation would degenerate into a philosophical or political policy debate. Furthermore, according to Respondents, the Vaccine Mandate and the Respondents' review of the reasonable accommodation requests has been explored, publicly reported and is subject to troves of public data and policy information. In support of this contention, Respondents point to several articles published by Forbes, the New York Times, Bloomberg etc. In further support, Respondents point to the New York City Department of Health website where they contend data about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccinations are readily available.

As to the third prong, Respondents argue that neither the New York State Constitution nor the United States Constitution sets forth duties by which Respondents are bound. As to Petitioner's contentions regarding recent statements made by Jay Varma, Respondent's argue assuming Varma had a duty or obligation Petitioners have failed to plead facts that establish that Varma violated or neglected said duties. In fact, Petitioners' contention that Varma encouraged people to wear masks, socially distance in public and get tested for COVID-19 with regularity was in alignment with his duty as the Covid Czar. Varma's personal opinions and decisions regarding the lockdown and vaccinations expressed years later have no bearing on the fact that Petitioners have failed to establish a neglect or violation of duty. Respondents also argue that Petitioners are bound by prior holdings finding that there was no violation or neglect of duty on the part of the Respondents pursuant to the principles of stare decisis (see Biro at 403; see also New York City Labor Comm at 684; New Yorkers for Religious Liberty Inc.at 690; Kane at 164).

Additionally, as it relates to Petitioners' contention that celebrities were not subject to the mandate, the Respondent argues that these celebrities were not employees of the City, and therefore could not be subject to the mandate (NYSCEF Doc. No. 38 at pg 33). During oral argument of these motions, it was apparent that the Petitioners were referring to the lifting of the "Key to NYC" policy as it related to Broadway and professional athletes (NYSCEF Doc. 38 at pg 22). However, that policy was suspended by the current Mayor Eric Adams, who is not a respondent in this matter. Even if the Court found that a summary inquiry was warranted in this case, Petitioners cannot hope to get an answer to a question regarding the suspension of a policy (or of any part thereof) without the relevant respondent. Further, the courts have already declined to hold a summary judicial inquiry in relation to Mayor Adams' actions in enforcing this policy. (see Biro at 404).

Finally, as to Petitioners' representation that the Respondents applied the wrong legal standard in their determinations surrounding reasonable accommodations Respondents contend that the same is a question of law and not appropriate for a summary judicial inquiry. Notwithstanding, Respondents contend that the Petitioner's allegations are factually baseless as [*7]noted in several cases including Lubert-Smith et al. v The City of New York et al. (Sup Ct, Queens County, August 2, 2024, Kerrigan K., Index No. 708514/2024) where the court was faced with a similar petition to the one herein, the respondents (similar to the Respondents herein) contended through an affidavit from respondent Eichenholtz (also a respondent herein) that the City considered the requirements under Title VII, ADA and New York City and State Human Rights law when determining whether the granting of reasonable accommodation would represent undue hardship. Ultimately, the court held that the record was silent as to proof that the incorrect legal standard was applied. In Groff v De Joy (600 US 447, 471 [2023]) the court found that a correct interpretation of the Title VII "undue hardship" showing required an analysis centered around "whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer's business in the common-sense manner that it would use in applying any such test."

At the outset, it must be noted that the global pandemic caused by the COVID-19 virus triggered one of the largest cultural, political, economic, and social shifts of this century. Its impact, whether by lives lost or by lives changed, cannot be overstated. At that time, governments around the globe and notably here in the United States at the federal, state and local levels were faced with a cacophony of issues that boiled down to the balancing of health and safety with the inalienable rights of their citizens. The first confirmed case in New York was discovered on March 1, 2020; by March 15, 2020 there were a total of 268 confirmed cases ^[FN2] and by March 31, 2020 the confirmed cases had risen to 41,771, that is an increase of approximately 15,486.19% in 15 days. This, coupled with overpacked hospitals and nursing homes, overworked medical staff, rising deaths, limited resources and an everchanging variant the government in New York faced a Herculean task. As counsel conceded during oral arguments, there was no blueprint. (See NYSCEF Doc. No. 38 at pg 14-15).

It is against this backdrop that then-Governor Cuomo held several daily briefings (a total of 111 consecutive daily briefings) wherein which he advised New Yorkers on various COVID-19 statistics like infection rates, hospitalization rates, deaths etc.; explained the status of the New York State on Pause Order, including re-opening the State in phases; discussed safety precautions; and answered questions from reporters, etc.^[FN3] Likewise, then-Mayor Bill De Blasio also held daily pandemic briefings which covered topics like the vaccine mandate and provided expert commentary on the fight against COVID-19 and the vaccine.^[FN4]

It is with this context, that this Court will consider this Petition and Motion. Furthermore, [*8]in Mountain View Coach Lines v Storms (102 AD2d 663, 664 [2d Dept 1984]) the Second Department noted that"[t]he Appellate Division is a single State-wide court divided into departments for administrative convenience and, therefore, the doctrine of stare decisis requires trial courts in this department to follow precedents set by the Appellate Division of another department until the Court of Appeals or this court pronounces a contrary rule." It is with this precedent that this Court applies the Carr factors set forth by the First Department.

This Court takes judicial notice that the New York State on PAUSE was an Executive Order signed by then Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Order included, among other things, the 100% Closure of non-essential businesses statewide, and is not subject to review under §1109 of the New York City Charter; accordingly, any arguments related to that are without merit. Further, Respondents' counsel represented on the record that "[t]he City did not close churches" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 38 at pg 34). Thus, this analysis will solely focus on the parties' arguments surrounding the vaccine mandate.

It is undisputed, as noted above, that the pandemic had far reaching consequences. The Vaccine Mandate affected thousands of citizens of this City. On the other hand, the vaccine mandate is no longer in affect. Thus, it appears the relevance of a summary inquiry related to the same is relegated to those citizens who were fired from their jobs due to their failure to comply with the Vaccine Mandate or the lack of alleged due process involved in the Respondents' handling of the reasonable accommodation process. In Carr, the court was concerned about the potential future consequences of failing to adequately address the death of an unarmed citizen at the hands of public servants (Carr at 137). Also relevant to the Court's holding in Carr, is the courts affirmance of the trial court's finding that "[p]ublic concern over the arrest and death of Mr. Garner continues unabated, and the words 'I can't breathe' continue to resonate" (Carr at 133). Unlike the Vaccine Mandate, the death of an unarmed citizen at the hands of a public servant had the potential to and indeed has reoccurred, thus the justiciability of the matter is not up for debate (Carr at 142). Petitioners concede that the Vaccine Mandate is no longer in effect but argue that a judicial inquiry could provide more transparency and guide future actions should another pandemic occur (see NYSCEF Doc No. 38 at pgs 15-16). However, this argument fails for the same reasons that the Spanish Flu provided little to no guidance in the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. As this Court noted during oral arguments, we live in an everchanging society. The rules that governed yesterday are not necessarily pertinent to the rules that should govern today, particularly as regards as pandemic which is no longer as rampant as it was five (5) years ago. Further, viruses present in different ways, have different rates of infection, have different morbidity rates, and are treated in differently. This is evident through a simple comparison between the flu, a common cold and COVID-19. To argue that our treatment of COVID-19 will have any bearing on any future virus would be to ignore the very nature of viruses. Thus, this Court finds that the Petitioners' have failed to allege facts that sustain prong 1.

Petitioners contend that summary inquiry is needed to address what they believe to be [*9]violations of New York City residents' Federal and State Constitutional rights, as well as other legal rights, and dignity they were due as working class employees. Among other things, they seek to know: the reason for the imposition of Vaccine Mandate; the reason for what they contend was disparate treatment of certain groups of people; the reason for what they contend was targeting of certain religious groups; the reason for what they believe were denials of reasonable accommodation requests without legal basis; and the people who comprised the Citywide Appeal Panel.

As noted herein, both the Governor and the Mayor held daily briefings related to the pandemic that extensively covered the vaccine mandate and other COVID-19 related topics. Nonetheless, publicity does not necessarily equate to transparency (see Carr at 137). Thus, this Court must consider the contents of the briefings and other coverage of the pandemic at the time, to determine whether there truly was transparency. During a briefing on the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate dated August 3, 2021, Mayor at the time Bill De Blasio presented Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine and Infectious Diseases at NYU's Grossman School of Medicine, Dr. Celine Gounder who explained the severity of the Delta Variant of COVID-19 including the ability for children to infect others and get very sick, something that was uncommon in prior variants, as such Dr. Gounder explained that the vaccine had the potential to turn COVID-19 "into something like the flu," in other words making it less contagious and deadly.^[FN5] Expert opinions coupled with comparisons of graphs that compared rates of infection following introduction of the vaccine with rates of infection pre-vaccine provided unbiased medical/scientific basis that was widely available to all citizens.^[FN6] Thus, it is unclear what other information the Respondents hope to uncover from a judicial inquiry. The fact that now, Petitioners can point to Varma or other Respondents who claim to now believe that the Vaccine was unnecessary is of no moment when a judicial inquiry would be focused on the actions taken back in 2020 and 2021 within the context of the facts, statistics and realities Respondents faced at that time.

Additionally, as noted above, there have been several cases at the appellate and local levels related to the constitutionality of the vaccine mandate and the granting of judicial inquiries on the same. The Petitioners have failed to establish the absence of investigations and transparent information regarding the Vaccine Mandate sufficient "to safeguard the public interest" (see Riches v New York City Council, 75 AD3d 33, 39 [1st Dept 2010]).

Petitioners' remaining contentions fail to state a cause of action related to Prong 2. The argument regarding disparate treatment between mayoral donors/celebrities and working-class citizens relates to actions that occurred under Mayor Eric Adams, who is not a respondent herein. Even if a judicial inquiry were merited, it would not shed light on this issue without Mayor Adams being a party. Furthermore, the identities and private meetings of those who made up the Citywide Appellate Panel are unimportant to the topics that the Petitioners have set, namely the alleged due process violations associated with the reasonable accommodation [*10]process. What would be important for such an inquiry is a comparison between what was done and what was legally required, not who did it and what they discussed privately. Thus, an investigation into who made up the Citywide Appellate Panel is not pertinent to safeguarding the public interest (id).

Petitioners' main argument surrounding a violation or neglect of duty is their contention that the Respondents failed to provide proper guidance on application of the proper standards for determinations made in relation to reasonable accommodations. Petitioners contend that the Respondents imposed a more stringent "sincerely held religious, moral or ethical belief" standard as a basis for the reasonable accommodation and altered the undue hardship definition from too costly or disruptive to job performance to a less stringent "de minimis" standard all without legislative input. Petitioners contend that these actions violated due process and First Amendment rights of the citizens of New York.

In opposition, Respondents contend that this is a legal question not a factual question and therefore not subject to judicial inquiry, Petitioners argue that the issue is factual. However, Petitioners inquiry topics including [emphasis added]:

e. Employees' due process rights and their employers' violations of the law and neglect of duties in connection with the change to the reasonable accommodation process, specifically for the COVID-19 lockdowns;

f. Violations and neglect of duties concerning Respondents' failure, during and after the COVID-19 lockdown, to train NYC Law Department attorneys and NYC agency supervisors adequately on the appropriate guidelines for the reasonable accommodation procedure and process under the New York State Constitution, New York State Human Rights Law, and NYC Human Rights Law, including why the City thought it was proper to close houses of worship;

g. Violations and neglect of duties in connection with applying the wrong hardship federal standard of "de minimis" instead of the legally correct New York standard of "significant" burden for the benefit of NYC workers to determine whether an accommodation could be provided;

h. Violations and neglect of duties related to advising employees that engaging in the legally mandated "cooperative dialogue" was unnecessary for any requests concerning the COVID-19 lockdown;

Questions surrounding changes to the law, the appropriate guidelines to be followed, application of the correct legal standard and legally mandated acts are all undisputably questions of law. The Court, on a motion to dismiss, is not required to deem as true that which is clearly a legal conclusion simply because the petitioner states that it is a fact. (see Quiroz at 1035).

As such, to the extent that Petitioners seek a judicial inquiry into the legal standards applied during the reasonable accommodations analysis the same must be denied as questions of law are not appropriate for a judicial inquiry because while the Petitioners may have an opportunity to seek information surrounding what standards were applied, the questions will remain as there will be no legal finding as to the legality of the actions that were taken. By [*11]granting a judicial inquiry on the basis of a bare legal conclusion unsupported by specific facts this Court would essentially re-open the door for a trial by public opinion on matters that have been decided under sound judicial discretion. (see New Yorkers for Religious Liberty v. City of New York (125 F.4th 319 [2d Cir. 2024]; see also Kane et al. v Bill De Blasio et al. (19 F.4th 152, 164 [2d Cir. 2021]); Matter of Andrea Biro et al. v. Eric Leroy et al. (235 AD3d 403 [1st Dept 2025]; Lubert-Smith et al. v The City of New York et al., Sup Ct, Queens County, August 2, 2024, Kerrigan K., index no. 708514/2024; New York City Mun. Labor Comm. v City of New York et al., 156 NYS3d 681,684 (Sup Ct, New York County 2021, Love, L.);. This Court refuses to utilize its discretion to do so.

NYPD kept two separate records

Taken as true, the Petitioners have failed to allege facts that would suggest a violation or neglect of duty by simply keeping two separate sets of records.

The Petitioners have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. While this Court acknowledges the accounts of the various citizens whose voices the Petitioners represent, and respects their efforts to seek answers on their behalf, an analysis of their interests and the purpose of the New York City Charter §1109 reveals that a summary inquiry would be inappropriate. Therefore, it is

ORDERED, that the Petition is denied in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that motion is granted and the Petition is dismissed.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and Order of the Court.