Key Points

  • The First Department unanimously granted William Kocher summary judgment on his New York City Human Rights Law claim that Mount Sinai Hospital failed to engage in a cooperative dialogue within a reasonable time.
  • The court held that the hospital's undisputed failure to initiate any dialogue after learning of Kocher's need for accommodation foreclosed summary judgment for the hospital on his reasonable-accommodation claims under both the State and City HRLs.
  • Record evidence that Kocher may have been unable to work at all did not entitle the hospital to summary judgment, because the hospital never engaged in an interactive process, but the same evidence foreclosed summary judgment for Kocher on his reasonable-accommodation claims.
  • Rejecting the hospital's contention, the court held that an employer's failure to engage in a good faith interactive process is independently actionable under the City HRL.
  • Neither side won summary judgment on the reasonable-accommodation claims under both laws or on the state-law dialogue claim.

A New York appeals court has ruled that Mount Sinai Hospital is liable under New York City's Human Rights Law for failing to talk with a longtime information technology manager about workplace accommodations after he became disabled during a nine-week stay in the hospital and later a rehabilitation center. The court granted the former employee judgment on that claim without a trial.

A five-judge panel of the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously modified an order by Justice Richard G. Latin of Supreme Court, New York County, who had denied summary judgment to both sides. The unsigned decision, issued Oct. 15, gave William Kocher judgment on his claim that the hospital failed to engage, within a reasonable time, "in a cooperative dialogue regarding his accommodation."

The decision gives Kocher a liability finding under the city law before any trial. It also leaves unresolved his separate claims, under both the state and city human rights laws, that the hospital failed to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability, along with his state-law dialogue claim. On those claims, the panel held that the hospital's inaction barred it from winning before trial, even though the record contained evidence that Kocher could not have worked at all.

Kocher worked in the hospital's Information Technology Department from 2005 until 2020, "managing over 80 people in locations throughout the New York City area," according to the decision. On Jan. 22, 2020, he was admitted to the hospital for a gallbladder condition and developed extensive complications. He spent a total of nine weeks in the hospital and later a rehabilitation center, and he became disabled.

The panel described the core facts as undisputed. The hospital knew of Kocher's condition and of his request to take long-term disability leave through the end of 2020. "There is also no dispute that defendant did nothing to engage plaintiff in an interactive process about the possibility of an accommodation," the panel wrote. The decision uses the terms interactive process and cooperative dialogue for the exchange in which an employer and an employee discuss whether an accommodation is possible.

That undisputed failure decided the hospital's own motion. "Defendant's failure to initiate a dialogue with plaintiff upon learning of his need for accommodation forecloses summary judgment for defendant under both HRLs," the panel wrote. The court relied on Jacobsen v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., a 2014 decision, and on Hosking v. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, a 2020 First Department decision.

The panel also held that evidence in the record suggesting Kocher "may have been unable to work with or without an accommodation does not entitle defendant to summary judgment on that basis." Quoting Hosking, the panel wrote that although a fact-finder may ultimately find that an employee cannot perform the job even with an accommodation, an employer "cannot jump to that ultimate conclusion without first engaging in a good faith interactive process."

The panel's discussion of Hosking set out how the burdens divide between the two stages of a case. At trial on a State HRL claim, the employee "still bears the burden of proving the existence of a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her position," the quoted passage reads. But "to prevail on a summary judgment motion . . . , the employer must show that it engaged in a good faith interactive process." The panel also cited Guarniero v. City of Yonkers, a 2025 decision of the Second Department.

The evidence about Kocher's capacity to work also defeated his own motion on those claims. "Similarly, the evidence that plaintiff was entirely unable to work forecloses summary judgment for plaintiff on his reasonable accommodation claims," the panel wrote.

Kocher won outright on the narrower city-law claim. The panel held that he "is entitled to summary judgment on his City HRL claim based on defendant's failure to engage, within a reasonable time, in a cooperative dialogue regarding his accommodation." The judges reasoned that "the record presents no issues of fact as to defendant's failure to engage plaintiff in a cooperative dialogue once defendant became aware of his condition." The court cited Sections 8-102 and 8-107(28)(a) of the city's Administrative Code and compared the case with Moye v. Mount Sinai Hospital, a First Department decision from earlier in 2026.

The hospital had contended that a failure to engage could not support a claim of its own. The panel rejected that contention. Quoting Hosking, it held that an employer's failure "to engage in a good faith interactive process is . . . independently actionable under the [City] HRL." The panel also cited Lettau v. 1199 SEIU National Benefit Fund, a 2021 First Department decision.

The panel granted judgment only on the city-law dialogue claim. In all other respects it affirmed Justice Latin's order, entered Dec. 24, 2025, which had denied both sides' motions on Kocher's state and city claims for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and failure to engage in a cooperative dialogue. The panel wrote that it had considered the parties' remaining contentions and found them unavailing, and it awarded costs to neither side.

The panel consisted of Justices Manzanet-Daniels, who presided, Shulman, Rodriguez, Higgitt and Rosado. Lawyers for Mount Sinai included Rory J. McEvoy of Akerman LLP. Kocher was represented by John J. Malley of Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens, LLP.

Neither side won summary judgment on Kocher's reasonable-accommodation claims under both laws or on his state-law dialogue claim. The appellate decision does not address what remedy Kocher will receive on the dialogue claim he won. The decision, reported as 2026 NY Slip Op 06007, is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.