2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- Citation
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- Jurisdiction
- New York (state)
- Source verification
- cross_accepted_sealed
- Original Source
- https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2009/2009_00440.htm ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
- 2009 NY Slip Op 00440
Full Text
781 charsFootnote 33: In view of the Restoration Act's rejection of Forrest v Jewish Guild for the Blind (3 NY3d 295 [2004]) and Galabya v New York City Bd. of Educ. (202 F3d 636 [2d Cir 2000]), two of the cases cited by the court below, that issue would need to be decided afresh with due regard for the commands of the enactment (see e.g. Council Member Palma's statement preceding footnote 3, supra [that cases like these "will no longer hinder the vindication of our civil rights"]; see also Committee Report, 2005 NY City Legis Ann, at 537 [demanding that "discrimination . . . not play a role"], at 538 n 4 [contrasting Galabya with the Council's preferred approach to materiality]). However, given the factual circumstances of the instant case, such a determination is not necessary.