Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a), of the papers considered in the review of this motion: Papers NYSCEF Numbered Notice of Motion/Cross Motion/Order to Show Cause and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 21-31 Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 33-34 Reply Affidavits (Affirmations) 35-37 Plaintiff’s Surreply 40 Defendants’ Sur-Surreply 41 DECISION AND ORDER Upon the foregoing cited papers, and after oral argument, in this action to recover damages under the New York City Human Rights Law (“City HRL”), defendants City of New York (the “City”) and Dr. Leon Eisikowitz, individually (“Dr. Eisikowitz” and collectively with the City, “defendants”), jointly move, pre-answer, for an order, pursuant to CPLR §§3211 (a) (5) and (7), dismissing the entirety of the amended complaint, dated October 18, 2023 (“Amended Complaint” or “AC”) of plaintiff Danielle Amendola (“plaintiff”). While generally opposing defendants’ motion, plaintiff does not object to the dismissal, as time-barred under CPLR §3211 (a) (5), of the portion of the Amended Complaint which is predicated on the alleged acts/omissions which preceded May 30, 2019.1 This leaves for the Court’s consideration the viability of plaintiff’s claims under CPLR §3211 (a) (7), insofar as such claims accrued on and after May 30, 2019 (“limitations period”). Summary2 Plaintiff served with the NYPD as a full-time, non-probationary police officer from January 8, 2014 to July 12, 2023 (for a total of approximately 9½ years). From June 17, 2019 to July 12, 2023, she was assigned to the 73rd precinct in the East New York section of Brooklyn, New York. Her one-way commute to the 73rd precinct from her home in Nassau County was 55 to 75 minutes one way. On January 28, 2020, plaintiff underwent spinal fusion surgery at the L5-S1 level for a non-LOD injury. On October 1, 2020, she returned to her command at the 73rd precinct. On October 19, 2020, she was seen by defendant Dr. Eisikowitz who, after reviewing her post-operative condition, placed her on restricted duty; namely, no patrol or enforcement (whether in an RMP or on foot); no contact with prisoners; and no physical labor (such as lifting heavy items in excess of 15 pounds, prolonged sitting, standing, climbing stairs, and delivery/pick-up of mail). On November 30, 2020, plaintiff submitted to the Reasonable Accommodation Unit (the “RA Unit”) of the NYPD’s Equal Employment Opportunity Division (“EEOD”) her request for reasonable accommodation (“RA”) on account of her post-operative orthopedic disabilities. She proposed that her RA take the form of her temporary transfer to another NYPD command that was within a 30-minute one-way commute from her home. She explained that her commute to her then-current NYPD command at the 73rd precinct caused her to suffer severe numbness in her legs and had put a strain on her back. Plaintiff’s RA request was cosigned by her supervising sergeant as “recommending approval,” and was supported by accompanying medical documentation. On January 19, 2021, the RA Unit, after conferral with the NYPD’s Medical Division, “recommended a transfer[] of [plaintiff] to a closer command due to her medical condition.” For reasons to be explored in discovery, however, the RA Unit’s recommendation was not co-signed by its Team Leader until March 16, 2021. Meanwhile, plaintiff, on March 3, 2021, withdrew her RA request, explaining that she was then “being accommodated by [her] precinct.” The following day, March 4, 2021, the EEOD “administratively closed [her] request” for RA. Plaintiff alleges that following her submission of an RA request on November 30, 2020, as well as following her withdrawal of it on March 3, 2021, she was told that: (1) “the NYPD could not accommodate her and that the ‘accommodated’ position, if one did arise, could be worse [for her] than her current assignment [at the 73rd precinct]“; (2) “there were no positions [at the NYPD] where she could be accommodated [at]“; (3) “she would be terminated based on her disability”; and (4) “she should resign.” (AC,
94, 105, 195, 197). According to plaintiff, she withdrew her RA request “out of fear that the [d]efendants would further retaliate against her.” (AC, 104). After withdrawing her RA request, plaintiff continued on restricted duty at the 73rd precinct until July 14, 2021. The 73rd precinct accommodated plaintiff by permitting her, while at work, to lie down on a cot in the back of the precinct. (AC,
