Abadi v. NYU Langone Health System

Background

Aaron Abadi, proceeding without a lawyer, sued NYU Langone Health System and several NYU Langone employees. His claims included alleged disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, among other causes of action.

In an earlier order, the court granted in part and denied in part Abadi’s motion to amend his complaint. The court denied his request to add 17 defendants. Abadi then moved for reconsideration of that ruling.

Arguments and analysis

The court applied the strict standard under Local Civil Rule 6.3. Reconsideration generally requires the movant to identify controlling law or facts the court overlooked, an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. The court also explained that reconsideration cannot be used to repeat previously rejected arguments or present facts and arguments that could have been raised earlier.

Abadi argued that eight proposed defendants—Regina Grinblat, Nina Gonzalez, Johanna Pizarro, Jimmy Estevez, Maria Moschetta, Christine Cha, Michelle Miranda, and Harvard Protection Services, LLC—were mentioned in the proposed amended complaint. The court held that allegations directed generally at “all Defendants” or “all Individual Defendants” were insufficient because they did not identify what any particular defendant allegedly did. The court characterized this as group pleading.

Abadi also relied on an exhibit concerning Maria Moschetta, Christine Cha, and Michelle Miranda. The court found that the complaint’s vague reference to the exhibit did not give any defendant notice of specific allegations against that defendant, and that the exhibit itself appeared to contain notes made by the defendants rather than allegations against them. The court further declined to consider factual allegations that were not included in the proposed amended complaint.

Abadi argued that he had mistakenly written “Mina” instead of Nina Gonzalez’s name. The court stated that correcting the name would not change the result because the allegations concerning Gonzalez were essentially the same as allegations concerning another individual that the court had already found insufficient. The allegations suggested only that Gonzalez was carrying out an existing NYU Langone policy.

Abadi separately argued that the court had misinterpreted the disability-discrimination laws and individual liability under the federal, state, and city statutes. The court found that these arguments largely repeated arguments from the earlier amendment motion. It also clarified that its earlier decision did not hold that denying access to a facility because a person could not wear a mask could never be discrimination. Instead, the earlier decision recognized that a policy may be legally permissible if no reasonable accommodation can be made and concluded that Abadi had not alleged facts showing that the proposed individual defendants had authority to do more than implement NYU Langone’s policy.

Finally, Abadi argued that his claims under Sections 1985 and 1986 of Title 42 were adequately supported. The court found that he merely repeated allegations the court had already considered and gave no reason to conclude that the earlier decision was wrong.

Ruling

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied Abadi’s motion for reconsideration. The order did not add the proposed defendants to the case.

In a footnote, the court treated Abadi’s memorandum as a request for permission to file another amendment motion. It waived the usual pre-motion conference requirement and stated that any such motion had to be filed within seven days. The court emphasized that granting permission to file that motion was not a decision that the motion would have a proper basis or would be timely.