Court Opinion

ID: 9945553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 21:10:43.117145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:31.964996
License: Public Domain

Magee v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the
                      City of N.Y.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30530(U)
                    February 20, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 156450/2022
                   Judge: Judy H. Kim
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 156450/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92                                                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. JUDY H. KIM                                                 PART                              04
                                                                                       Justice
            ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X   INDEX NO.          156450/2022
             KEVIN MAGEE,
                                                                                                                     08/03/2022,
                                                         Petitioner,                              MOTION DATE        02/13/2023

                                                 - V -
                                                                                                  MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _0_0_1_0_0_3__

             THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, COMMUNITY
             SCHOOL DISTRICT 75 OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION
                                                                                                    DECISION + ORDER ON
             OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, UNITED FEDERATION OF
             TEACHERS,                                                                                    MOTION

                                                         Respondents.
            ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 2, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,
            31, 32, 33, 34,35, 36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,59, 77, 78, 79, 80,81,82, 83,
            84
            were read on this motion for                                                ARTICLE 78 (BODY OR OFFICER)

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 65, 66, 67, 68, 69,
            70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 85
            were read on this motion to                                                    AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS

                      In this special proceeding, petitioner alleges that in February 2002, he began working as a

            teacher for the New York City Department of Education ("DOE") (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 [Petition

            at iFD- On August 24, 2021, the New York City Commissioner of the Department of Health and

            Mental Hygiene ("DOHMH") issued an order requiring all DOE employees to submit proof of

            their COVID-19 vaccinations by September 27, 2021 (the "DOHMH Order") (Id. at iJIO; see also

            NYSCEF Doc. No. 5). On September 20, 2021, petitioner applied for a religious exemption from

            the DOHMH Order (NYSCEF Doc. No. 1 [Petition at iJ13).

             156450/2022 MAGEE, KEVIN vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL                                   Page 1 of 6
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
             Motion No. 001 003

                                                                            1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 156450/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                    On September 22, 2021, the DOE denied petitioner's request for a religious exemption

            (Id.). On December 3, 2021, petitioner appealed that denial (Id. at ,Jl6). On March 28, 2022,

            petitioner was notified that the City of New York's Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel

            (the "Appeals Panel") denied his appeal and that his employment would be terminated if he did

            not submit proof of vaccination against COVID-19 by April 1, 2022 (Id. at ,JI 8; NYSCEF Doc.

            No. 13). Petitioner failed to do so and on April 11, 2022, the DOE notified petitioner that his

            employment was terminated, effective April 7, 2022 (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 1 [Petition at ,Jl9] and

            14).

                    On August 3, 2022, petitioner commenced this proceeding against the DOE, Community

            School District 75 of the Board of Education of the City of New York ( collectively, the "City"),

            and his union, the United Federation of Teachers, seeking an order: (i) declaring that the denial of

            his religious accommodation and subsequent termination were arbitrary and capricious; (ii)

            directing respondents to vacate petitioner's termination and declare him exempt from the

            DOHMH's Order; and (iii) awarding petitioner employment benefits from October 4, 2021 to

            present.

                    On October 26, 2022, the City interposed an answer which, inter alia, asserted an

            affirmative defense that this proceeding is untimely under the applicable four-month statute of

            limitations.

                    On February 13, 2023, petitioner moved to amend the petition to allege, as pertinent here,

            that "[o]n or about February 6, 2023, the City modified the April 11, 2022 termination condition

            to give [petitioner] back his position as a tenured teacher if the Petitioner agrees waives back pay

            and civil service rights in writing" (NYSCEF Doc. No. 70 [Proposed Am. Petition at ,J21]). In

            connection with that motion, petitioner notes that on February 6, 2023, the City rescinded the

             156450/2022 MAGEE, KEVIN vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL               Page 2 of 6
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
             Motion No. 001 003

                                                          2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 156450/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92                                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

            COVID-19 vaccine mandate and permitted those DOE employees who were terminated for failing

            to provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19 to apply for reinstatement upon certain

            conditions (NYSCEF Doc. No. 72) and argues that this change in policy "shows that neither the

            determination by the [Appeals Panel] on March 28, 2022, nor the termination notice on April 11,

            2022 was final and binding within the meaning of CPLR §217." The City opposes petitioner's

            motion to amend, arguing that the proposed amendments are futile since petitioner's claims

            stemming from the denial of his religious accommodation remain time-barred. 1

                                                               DISCUSSION

                      The petition 1s dismissed as untimely. Pursuant to CPLR §217(1), an Article 78

            "proceeding against a body or officer must be commenced within four months after the

            determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner" (CPLR §217[1]). An

            agency action is final and binding upon the petitioner when the agency has reached "a definitive

            position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury" and "the injury inflicted may not be

            prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the

            complaining party" (Best Payphones, Inc. v Dept. of Info. Tech. & Telecom., 5 NY3d 30, 34

            [2005] [internal quotations omitted]). "A determination generally becomes binding when the

            aggrieved party is notified" of that determination (Johnson v The City of New York, 2023 NY Slip

            Op 31967[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2023] citing Musey v 425 E. 86 Apts. Corp., 154 AD3d 401,

            404 [1st Dept 2017]).

            1
             On July 3, 2023, plaintiff e-filed a letter to this Court requesting permission for supplemental briefing to address the
            applicability of a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, Groff v DeJ oy, 600 US 44 7 (2023 ). The Court
            declines to grant this request. Groff clarifies an employer's burden in establishing that an accommodation of an
            employee's religious practice would impose an "undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business" under
            Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and has no bearing on the grounds for the denial and dismissal of this special
            proceeding.
                156450/2022 MAGEE, KEVIN vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL                              Page 3 of 6
                DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
                Motion No. 001 003

                                                                    3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 156450/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                   Here, the Appeals Panel's March 28, 2022 denial of petitioner's religious accommodation

            constituted a final decision that inflicted an actual, concrete injury (See~' Demerest v New York

            City Police Dept., 2023 NY Slip Op 30232[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2023]; see also Mendez v Fire

            Dept. of the City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 31589[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2023]). Petitioner

            does not dispute that he was notified of the denial of his appeal on March 28, 2022. Therefore, the

            four-month statute of limitations began to run on that date and elapsed on July 28, 2022. Since

            petitioner commenced this special proceeding on August 3, 2022, his claims arising out of the

            denial of his religious exemption are untimely. Petitioner's contention that the limitations period

            for such claims began to run on the date he was notified of his termination-i.e., April 11, 2022-

            is without merit (See Musey v 425 E. 86 Apts. Corp., 154 AD3d 401, 404 [1st Dept 2017]).

            Accordingly, all claims stemming from the denial of petitioner's appeal for a religious

            accommodation are therefore dismissed.

                   To the extent that the Petition may be read as also asserting a claim that petitioner's

            termination violated CPLR §7803(3), such a claim would be timely, insofar as this special

            proceeding was commenced within four months of petitioner's April 11, 2022 termination.

            However, this claim fails on its merits. CPLR §7803(3) permits a court to review "whether a

            determination was ... an abuse of discretion, including abuse of discretion as to the measure or

            mode of penalty or discipline imposed" (CPLR §7803 [3] [emphasis added]), and is inapplicable

            here-petitioner's termination was neither a penalty nor a disciplinary action but the result of his

            failure to satisfy a "qualification of employment unrelated to job performance, misconduct, or

            competency" (Matter of O'Reilly v Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York,

            213 AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2023] [internal citations omitted]).

             156450/2022 MAGEE, KEVIN vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL              Page 4 of 6
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
             Motion No. 001 003

                                                          4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 156450/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                    In light of the foregoing, the petition is denied, as is petitioner's motion to amend the

            petition. While "leave to amend the pleadings is ordinarily freely given" under CPLR §3025(b)

            (Garcia v NY-Presbyt. Hosp., 114 AD3d 615, 615 [1st Dept 2014]), such "[l]eave will be denied

            where the proposed pleading ... is palpably insufficient as a matter of law" (Thompson v Cooper,

            24 AD3d 203, 205 [1st Dept 2005]). Here, inasmuch as the proposed amendment-which would

            add allegations that "the City modified the April 11, 2022 termination condition to give [petitioner]

            back his position as a tenured teacher if the Petitioner agrees waives back pay and civil service

            rights in writing"-would not render petitioner's challenge to the Appeals Panel's denial of his

            religious accommodation timely or alter the conclusion that petitioner's challenge to his

            subsequent termination per CPLR §7803(3) does not lie. Accordingly, the proposed amended

            petition "suffer[s] from the same fatal deficienc[ies] as the original [petition]" (Carey v Trustees

            of Columbia Univ. in the City of New York, 177 AD3d 452, 452 [1st Dept 2019]) and leave to

            amend must be denied.

                    Accordingly, it is

                    ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed;

            and it is further

                    ORDERED that petitioner's motion to amend the Petition is denied; and it is further

                    ORDERED that counsel for respondent The Board of Education of the City School District

            of the City of New York shall, within ten days from the date of this decision, order, and judgment,

            serve a copy of this decision, order, and judgment, with notice of entry, on petitioner as well as on

            the Clerk of the Court (60 Centre St., Room 141B) and the Clerk of the General Clerk's Office (60

            Centre St., Room 119), who are directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further

             156450/2022 MAGEE, KEVIN vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL                Page 5 of 6
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
             Motion No. 001 003

                                                          5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 156450/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/20/2024

                    ORDERED that such service upon the Clerk of the Court and the Clerk of the General

            Clerk's Office shall be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Protocol on

            Courthouse and County Clerk Procedures for Electronically Filed Cases (accessible at the

            "EFiling" page on this court's website at the address www.nycourts.gov/supctmanh).

                    This constitutes the decision, order, and judgment of the Court.

                    2/20/2024
                      DATE                                                         HON. JUDY H. KIM, J.S.C.

                                                                       ~
             CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                     NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                         GRANTED         0    DENIED       GRANTED IN PART          □ OTHER
             APPLICATION:                SETTLE ORDER                      SUBMIT ORDER

             CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:       INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN        FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT    □ REFERENCE

             156450/2022 MAGEE, KEVIN vs. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL                   Page 6 of 6
             DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL
             Motion No. 001 003

                                                           6 of 6
[* 6]