A New York court has ruled against firefighter Joseph Starna in a case regarding his request for a reasonable accommodation from a vaccine mandate. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued its decision on September 2, 2026, in the case known as Matter of Starna v. New York City Fire Dept. (Docket No. 2024-09114). The ruling is significant for public employees seeking religious exemptions from vaccination requirements.
Starna, who was a firefighter with the New York City Fire Department (FDNY), filed a petition after his request for a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was denied. The case has implications for how public sector employees navigate vaccine mandates and religious accommodations.
The dispute began when Starna sought an exemption from the FDNY's vaccine mandate on religious grounds. After his request was denied, he initiated a proceeding under New York's CPLR article 78, which allows individuals to challenge government actions. The case eventually reached the Appellate Division after a series of lower court decisions.
The initial ruling favored Starna, with the Supreme Court granting his request for reinstatement and ordering a hearing on attorney fees. However, the Appellate Division's recent ruling reversed the lower court's decision regarding attorney fees. The court stated, "The general rule is that in [CPLR] article 78 proceedings, the prevailing party may not collect attorneys' fees from the loser unless an award is authorized by agreement between the parties or by statute or by court rule."
This ruling indicates that Starna will not receive the $28,940.47 awarded to him by the lower court for attorney fees and costs. The Appellate Division found that the award was not authorized by any agreement, statute, or court rule, thus deeming the lower court's decision improper.
The judges on the panel included Francesca E. Connolly, Cheryl E. Chambers, William G. Ford, and James P. McCormack. Their decision reflects a strict interpretation of the rules governing attorney fees in such cases.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond Starna. It clarifies the legal landscape for public employees seeking accommodations from vaccine mandates. The court's decision emphasizes that without specific legal backing, individuals cannot expect to recover attorney fees in these types of cases.
This ruling may deter other public employees from pursuing similar claims for attorney fees after challenging vaccine mandates. It sets a precedent that limits financial recovery in cases involving religious exemptions from vaccination requirements.
Looking ahead, the City of New York and the FDNY may continue to enforce their vaccine mandates without the concern of incurring additional costs from attorney fee awards. This ruling may also influence future cases involving public sector employees and vaccine mandates, as it establishes a clear guideline regarding the recovery of attorney fees.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Starna plans to appeal this decision or if there are related cases pending. However, the outcome of this case will likely resonate in discussions about public health mandates and individual rights in the workplace.