MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff John Furman brings this action against the City of New York, the Board of Education Retirement System of the City of New York (BERS), the Board of Trustees (a/k/a the Retirement Board) of BERS (BOT), each member of the BOT individually, and the Executive Director of BERS, Mr. Sanford Rich (collectively, the Defendants). Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) alleges 42 U.S.C. §1983 and state-law claims arising from Defendants’ rejection of Plaintiff’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. Defendants now move to dismiss the SAC under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court grants the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s federal claims but denies the motion with respect to two of Plaintiff’s state-law claims. In light of Plaintiff’s pending Article 78 action, the Court will stay proceedings on the remaining state-law claims until the Article 78 court issues its decision. I. Factual Background Plaintiff worked as a custodian engineer at the New York City Department of Education (DOE) from July 25, 2001 until approximately July 29, 2010. See SAC at 30, ECF No. 44; Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint at 2, ECF No. 61 (Opp.). Through his employment, Plaintiff became a member of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code §13-104. Members of this system were eligible for two types of disability benefits: occupational disability retirement benefits (ODR) and accidental disability retirement benefits (ADR). See id. at §13-167 (ODR); id. at §13-168 (ADR). ADR benefits are more generous. Compare id. at §13-174 (ODR) with id. at §13-175 (ADR). Qualifying for them, however, is harder to do. While ODR benefits are available to any employee who becomes disabled after spending ten years in the retirement system, see N.Y. Retire. & Soc. Sec. Law §605(b)(1) & (c), ADR benefits are reserved only for applicants whose disability was “the natural and proximate result of an accident…sustained in the performance of his duties,” regardless of the employee’s tenure in the system, see id. at §605(b)(3). The ADR-application process involves several steps. First, an applicant submits an application to BERS’ “medical board” (the “Medical Board”). See N.Y.C. Admin. Code §13-168(a). After conducting a “[m]edical examination” and “investigation,” the Medical Board issues a certification to the BOT as to whether the applicant qualifies for ADR benefits. Id. The Medical Board’s findings are conclusive with respect to whether the applicant is “physically or mentally incapacitated,” but the BOT has final say as to whether the applicant’s incapacitation was caused by an “accident” in the course of employment. Id. The BOT then renders a decision approving or rejecting the ADR application. Id. The applicant may appeal an adverse determination. This litigation arises from Defendants’ denial of Plaintiff’s ADR application. Plaintiff claims he is entitled to ADR benefits because his disability was caused by an on-the-job accident that he sustained in 2003 when he fell down a set of stairs at work. Defendants, however, have consistently found that Plaintiff’s disability was caused by another injury. This disagreement has inspired years of litigation. Plaintiff filed for ADR benefits in August 2009. SAC at 41. BERS rejected Plaintiff’s application. Id. at 47. It then denied his appeal without explanation. Id. at
48, 51; Ex. A at 45, ECF No. 44-1 (2012 Article 78 Petition). At BERS’ invitation, Plaintiff filed a second administrative appeal, which BERS again denied. SAC at
