Prinzivalli v Farley

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Prinzivalli v Farley 2014 NY Slip Op 31708(U) June 18, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 114372/09 Judge: Joan A. Madden Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCAN~EDON7/3/20141'!1!1.~'~~·'!!!I'.°>!!!"".-~'"'11\'!111-----~""'.'"------"""""'--~-------,_---------"~ ~ [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY 1-k (,,J PRESENT: j OCA v )) · lJ1 1 ~ lJ PART~((_ Justice Inpex Number : 114372/2009 . PRINZIVALLI JOANN INDEX N O . - - - - - vs MOTION DATE _ _ __ FARLEY, THOMAS MOTION SEQ. NO. - - - Sequence Number : 007 REARGUMENT/RECONSIDERATION The following papers, numbered 1 to ___. , were read on this motion to/for~(.::;_lft< ..... J-1-vy-,,--\--_-.·- - - - - - - I No(s)._ _ _ __ I No(s). _______ I No(s). - - - - - Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause "-Affidavits - Exhibits Answering Affidavits - Exhibits , Replying Affidavits Upon the foregoing J>apers, it is oi'dered thatthis motion is f't fA N 1.-t-M l.AA.t111..urc-J11""'- J)e,,c l~w r Jcu d..tJ Of~/ I ri Ct {{ u1 d~ tv fUl- WI ~ Fl LED JUL 03 2.014 . NEWYORK ~ COUNTY cu:RK'S Orr.,.,......... 4 ¢ ¢ - .; ()_./ _ ____,Qi4~1--------' J.s.c. I . 1. CHECK ONE: ........................................................~............ 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION IS: 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ 0 CASE DISPOSED 0 GRANTED 0 DENIED 0 SETILE ORDER 0DONOTPOST .kNON-FINAL DISPOSITION 0 GRANTED IN PART 0 OTHER DsueMIT ORDER 0 FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY: PART 11 JOANN MARIE PRINZIVALLI, PATRICIA HARRINGTON, MARCO WYLIE, and NAZ SEENAUTH, Index No.: 111372/09 Petitioners, - against THOMAS FARLEY in his official capacity as HEAT,'TH COMMISSIONER OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY BUREAU OF VITAL STATISTICS, NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF VITAL RECORDS, NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF HEALTH, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE, and THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Fl LED l ' s l JUL 0 3 2014 Respondents. NBVYORK JOAN A. MADDEN, .. ! .: ~- ;··r-·/ CLERl"~'S OFRC~ J. : Respondents move for an order (1) granting reargument of the court's decision and order dated March 13, 2014 original decision") ("the to the extent it ordered discovery with respect to certain documents demands and interrogatories and, upon reargument, denying such discovery or, in the alternative, (2) granting respondents additional time to respond to such discovery demands and interrogatories. Petitioners oppose the motion. In this Article 78 proceeding, petitioners, who are transgender individuals, challenge respondents' denial of their applications to amend their birth certificates to change the designated "sex." Petitioners also seek a declaration that the [* 3] .. New York City Board of Health regulation requiring transgender applicants to submit proof of ''convertive surgeryn in order to obtain an amended birth certificate, and respondents' implementation of the regulation, are arbjtrary, capricious, and unJawfully discriminatory. In this regard, petitioners challenge the validity of section 20'7.05 20'7.05 [a] (a) (5) of the New York City Health Code (.'.?!l H.CNY [5] ), requiring proof of genital surgery, the absence of which was the primary reason for denying petitioners' applications. Specifically, petitioners question whether respondents' reasons for retaining the reassignment surgery prerequisite, and for interpreting that requirement to mean genital surgery, have a rational basis, and whether the regulation and the implementation of it are the result of discriminatory animus against transgender and disabled persons. At issue on this motion is that part of the original decision granting petitioners' motion to compel respondents to reques~ respond to petitioners' document 1 numbers 1 and 2 1 and Document request no. 1 seeks "[a]ll documents, including all policies, and/or communications concerning the maner in which persons are housed, roomed, classified or otherwise segregated on the basis of sex and/or gender in Correctional Facilities, Hospitals and/or Schools operated by the city, including Lhe implementation and/or enforcement of any determinations and/or classifications.n Document request no. 2 seeks "[a]ll documents concerning the manner in which transgender persons are housed, roomed, classified or otherwise segregated on any basis in any Correctional Facility, Hospital and/or School operated by the 2 [* 4] d int r p petitione s were requests s poJ j r.act fac it y s, ho [or inforrnat: ] rel t u ed a t s'] Verifi ystem a t se faci rational basis for ng to ona ed cor In grant ng th s dis overy the s relevant as it is clear Answer that the lassific _ion t:i s is related to re s' "[w~hile a irre~evant [the] documents [sought] are rtment la e to address the concerns of the other agencies before it that the agencie a serted rement." [reassi court a so indicated in a footnote that that h to City court noted that "[this informat:ion from [ ent the variot: a s and schooJs. L that scovery to the e 0 the cl ssificat: f Tf1e court: s tn " itl documents and J 8. ga ories 1 The ts re Correct:icns and f the amendment, as it was too the r ord to the amendment and re obj s were aware of the objections." A motion for is addressed to the discretion of ea a party an opportun ty to to the court, and is int: demonstrate that the court overlooked or relevant cts, or misapp i v Roche, 68 AD2d 58, d a cont 567 "[r]e rgument .is not desi city, dC::te inc ng 1:he ng rinc Je of law. 1979). to afford the unsucce lerner1t2 cJ_ ( st sapprehended t SS fi or en rcerner1t r, ful part such [* 5] successive opportunities to reargue jssues previously decided" William P. Pah_?_ Equipment Corp. v. Kassis, 182 AD2d 22, appeal denied in part dismissed in part 80 NY2d 1005 [1992]. Respondents assert that the court misapprehended the facts as they did not assert in their Verified Answer that the classification system at these facilities provided a rational basis for the reassignment surgery requirement. However, this argument is belied by a review of the Verified Answer which demonstrates that, system was, at the very least, the subject classification as found by the court, related to respondents' asserted rational basis for the reassignment surgery requirement. For example, the Verified Answer alleges that "among other things [the Department of Health] determined that classifying individuals by gender could have broader societal and legal ramifications than they jnitially anticipated when proposing the amendment. Specifically, by classifying by gender, [the Department of Health] found thaL rather than sex, there could be an impact on the institutions relating to housing and other accommodations, including hospitals, prisons." Verified Answer, ~ schools, workplaces and 418. Respondents also argue that subject discovery requests were not narrowly tailored and thus the requests should have been vacated. This argument was previously made in the underlying motion, and was considered in connection with the original 4 [* 6] c s on. Notably 1 extent t sts s ssif WO at k iJ',] ys used at Cit s n addi ion, ~ to Lh po al 2L c es and a ioners have agreed to s: obtai ans the informai=jon motion to reargue is den ed. Respondents also seek additional t discovery the he se tters to aid Acco::-di 4- lat se only t owned correcLi to ascert i th re and othe s docume!1ts tals and schoo s. ho re ious agencies with respe t pract ces o l requ o the issue on this motion and as well as to the other cii.scove y tr:e or g n produced cisi.on. of the moLion is granted to the extent that re a s shall have 45 days from the date of s decision and order re acco~dance 1::.o the addi'::.ional discovery in n view of the above, ORDERED that ~he o with the it is s' motion to reargue re s ed; and it is further ORDSJ\:t~D itioners' JEne/) ' '\'\.! 6a0 to the accordance wi'::.h from the of this L.\l'\4 ( / . DATED: to re additional discovery decision is extendef and order. s, t th.at re 2014 j\J\... 0-,:, t-\~'{O~o~ cout{f'( . . ..,, c~f\r .. J. 5 s. c. l ci on

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.