UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R TH E SECO N D CIRCU IT SUMMARY ORD ER TH IS SUMMARY ORDER WILL N OT BE PUBLISH ED IN TH E FED ERAL REPO RTER AN D MAY N OT BE CITED AS PRECED ENTIAL AUTH ORITY TO TH IS OR AN Y OTHER COURT, BU T MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION OF TH IS OR AN Y O TH ER COURT IN A SUBSEQ UEN T STAGE OF TH IS CASE, IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN AN Y CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR RES JUD ICATA.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the U nited States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of N ew York, on the 23rd day of September, two thousand and two.

PRESEN T:

JO SEPH M. MCLAU GH LIN JO SÉA. CABRAN ES Circuit Judges GERARD E. LYN C H District Judge*

MARGARETMARY FEELEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- N o. 02-7148

N EW YO RK CITY PO LICE DEPART MEN T and H O WARD SAFIR, in his capacity as Commissioner for the N ew York City Police Department, Defendants-Appellees.

MARGARETMARY FEELEY, Pro se, Staten APPEARIN G FOR APPELLAN T:

Island, N Y.

KRISTIN M. H ELMERS, Assistant Chief, APPEARIN G FOR APPELLEES:

Appeals Division (Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel for the City of N ew York, on the brief), Office of the Corporation Counsel for the City of N ew York, N ew York, N Y.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of N ew York (Raymond J. Dearie, Judge).

UPON D UE CON SID ERATION , IT IS H EREBY O RD ERED , AD JUD GED , AN D D ECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and hereby is AFFIRMED .

Plaintiff-appellant Margaretmary Feeley timely appeals from a September 7, 2001

judgment of the District Court granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, who was a former probationary N ew York City transit police officer, alleged that she sustained an injury to her foot in the line of duty. After she was fired in March 1996, the plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit on May 20, 1997, alleging claims for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("AD A"), 42 U .S.C. § 12101, N ew York State H uman Rights Law ("N YH RL"), Executive Law § 296 et seq., and the Administrative Code of the City of N ew York § 8-107(1)(a).

We affirm the judgment of the District Court for substantially the reasons stated in the District Court's Memorandum and Order of September 4, 2001. However, we pause to take issue with the District Court's statement of the law regarding the similarity between the N YH RL and the ADA. The District Court observed that "[t]he legal standards applicable to plaintiff's federal claim and her state and city law claims are 'virtually identical.'" Feeley v. New Y ork City Police Dep't, N o. 97 CV 2891(RJD), slip op. at 6 n.4 (E.D.N .Y. Sep. 4, 2001).

But as we recently recalled in Giordano v. City of New Y ork, 274 F.3d 740, 754 (2d Cir. 2002), "the definitions of disability under the N ew York State Executive Law and the N ew York City Administrative Code are broader than the ADA definition." Id. In Reeves v. Johnson Controls W orld Services, Inc., 140 F.3d 144, 154 (2d Cir. 1998), we had held that "[t]he clear and controlling authority of the N ew York Court of Appeals' decision in State Division of Human Rights v. X erox Corp., 65 N .Y.2d 213 . . . (1985), compels" the conclusion that the N YH RL does "not require [a plaintiff] to identify a major life activity that is substantially limited by his impairment." Id.

Despite the District Court's misstatement of the law, the plaintiff's state and city claims nevertheless meet the standard for dismissal under the applicable laws.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED .

FOR TH E CO URT, Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk By

[*]-. O f th e U n ited Stat es D istr ict C o u rt for th e South ern D istr ict o f N ew Yo rk , sitt in g by designat ion .