[*2]Recitation as per CPLR §§ 2219(a) and/or 3212(b) of papers considered on review of this motion:

Upon the foregoing cited papers and after oral argument on December 11, 2024, pursuant to CPLR Article 78, for the reasons stated below, the Article 78 Petition in the instant matter seeking, among other things, an Order finding Respondents' refusal to reasonably accommodate Petitioner's disabilities to be a violation of lawful procedure and affected by an error of law (Motion Sequence # 1) is hereby DENIED in its entirety and dismissed. Additionally, Respondents' Order to Show Cause (Motion Sequence # 2) is DENIED as moot.

Petitioner, a tenured special education teacher at a New York City Department of Education ("DOE") elementary school in Brooklyn,^[FN1] filed the instant Article 78 petition on November 12, 2024.^[FN2] Petitioner suffers from scoliosis, kyphosis, and several mental health conditions, including mood disorder, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and insomnia.^[FN3]

Due to these medical conditions and ongoing treatment, the DOE approved a "Restoration of Health Sabbatical" for Petitioner for the 2023-2024 school year.^[FN4] In preparation for his return for the 2024-2025 school year, Petitioner sought reasonable accommodations, requesting reassignment either as an attendance teacher or as a Special Education Teacher Support Services ("SETSS") provider.^[FN5]

On August 5, 2024, Petitioner applied to a SETSS position and requested accommodations.^[FN6] After multiple discussions with his principal and the Office of Disability Accommodations ("ODA"),^[FN7] Petitioner was offered and accepted an accommodation consisting [*3]of a later start and end time at his school.^[FN8] Subsequently, the DOE directed Petitioner to undergo a medical examination. On December 5, 2024, Petitioner was found unfit to perform his teaching duties.^[FN9]

Petitioner now seeks relief including: (i) a declaration that Respondents' denial of his accommodation request was unlawful and an abuse of discretion; (ii) reversal of the denial; (iii) reassignment to a vacant committee of special education or SETSS provider position; (iv) injunctions preventing unpaid leave or termination due to disability; (v) back pay and benefits; and (vi) attorneys' fees and costs.^[FN10]

Petitioner contends Respondents failed to engage in a good faith cooperative dialogue and improperly denied reasonable accommodations in violation of law and DOE policies.^[FN11]

Respondents argue their decisions were rational and lawful, as Petitioner cannot perform essential job functions even with accommodations; the requested accommodations were unreasonable and imposed undue hardship; and that a cooperative dialogue was maintained.^[FN12] Respondents also assert that the City of New York is an improper party and that attorneys' fees are not recoverable.^[FN13]

An Article 78 proceeding provides limited judicial review of administrative determinations.^[FN14] The Court's role is to assess whether the agency's decision was made in violation of lawful procedure, affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary and capricious.

A determination is arbitrary and capricious if made without a sound basis in reason or [*4]regard to the facts.^[FN15] Where an agency acts within its statutory authority, applies legislatively mandated procedures, and its findings are supported by substantial evidence, courts must defer to the agency's expertise and factual determinations.^[FN16]

Courts may not substitute their judgment for that of the agency.^[FN17] Judicial deference extends to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations and, to a lesser extent, to its construction of governing statutory law.^[FN18] However, agencies cannot add requirements or assume powers beyond their enabling legislation.^[FN19]

As a threshold matter, Petitioner's claims against Respondent City of New York are dismissed. The law is clear that the City is a distinct legal entity from the DOE and cannot be held vicariously liable for DOE's actions. Thomas v. City of New York, 124 AD3d 872, 873 (2d Dept. 2015); Tanaysha T. v. City of New York, 130 AD3d 916, 917 (2d Dept. 2015); McClain v. City of New York, 65 AD3d 1020 (2d Dept. 2009). Therefore, Petitioner's Article 78 proceeding is dismissed as to Respondent City of New York.

Turning to Petitioner's claims against the DOE, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a violation of lawful procedure or an abuse of discretion. Under Administrative Code § 8-107(28)(a)(2), an employer must engage in a good faith cooperative dialogue with an employee requesting disability accommodations. Here, the record shows the DOE engaged in a thorough and ongoing interactive process with Petitioner and his counsel between July 31, 2024 and December 2024. Smith v. New York City Fire Dept., 239 AD3d 870 (2d Dept. 2025); Brickhouse v. City of New York, 188 AD3d 516 (1st Dept. 2020).

Respondent DOE requested medical documentation, considered Petitioner's accommodation requests, and offered multiple reasonable alternatives, including hardship transfers, which Petitioner declined.^[FN20] Petitioner's other accommodation requests were denied based on legitimate operational constraints, such as the unavailability of remote or non-[*5]classroom positions closer to Petitioner's residence.

Accordingly, Petitioner has not shown that DOE's denial of his requested accommodations was arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in a good faith cooperative dialogue. Smith, 239 AD3d at 872; Brickhouse, 188 AD3d at 518; Marsteller v. City of New York, 217 AD3d 543 (1st Dept. 2023). Respondents offered Petitioner two hardship transfers, which were declined by Petitioner, and further explained why his other requests were denied, such as that there were no available remote classes or non-classroom work closer to his home.^[FN21] Thus, Respondents adequately clarified their basis for the determinations, and said determinations were not arbitrary and capricious.

Because the challenged determination was neither arbitrary and capricious nor affected by an error of law, Petitioner is not entitled to back pay, benefits, or attorneys' fees. Smith, 239 AD3d at 873; Rysiejko v. City of New York, 232 AD3d 432 (1st Dept. 2024).

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner's Article 78 petition is denied in its entirety and dismissed. Respondents' Order to Show Cause is denied as moot.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.