By Michael Phillips

A federal civil-rights appeal now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit raises critical questions about how police departments across New York—and nationwide—treat individuals with disabilities during arrests and interrogations.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Marc H. Fishman, who alleges that the City of New Rochelle and its police department violated federal disability law by denying him a reasonable accommodation during a custodial police interview.

---

What the Appeal Argues

In December 2025, Mr. Fishman filed a reply brief asking the Second Circuit to reverse a lower court’s dismissal of his case and send it to trial. The appeal makes several core points:

• Police conceded key facts
  The City does not dispute that Mr. Fishman is disabled or that he requested an accommodation during questioning.
• A requested accommodation was denied
  Mr. Fishman repeatedly asked that his court-assigned ADA cognitive aide be allowed to assist him during a police interview involving complex family-court orders. Officers refused.
• The wrong legal standard was applied
  The district court dismissed the case by relying on a judge-created “greater injury or indignity” test—one that the Second Circuit has never adopted.
• The correct standard is “meaningful access”
  Under binding Second Circuit law, police encounters are public services. Denying a reasonable communication accommodation to a disabled person—especially during interrogation—can itself be unlawful discrimination, regardless of whether physical injury occurred.
• Failure to engage in an interactive process is actionable
  Officers admitted they did not engage in any interactive process to determine how to accommodate Mr. Fishman’s disabilities. Federal disability law requires more than disbelief or dismissal.

---

Why This Case Matters Beyond One Person

This appeal is not just about one arrest. It highlights a broader, systemic problem:

• Police officers deciding for themselves whether a disability is “real”
• Refusing low-cost, obvious accommodations
• Treating disability as an inconvenience rather than a civil right
• Using arrest authority without ensuring equal access to due process

The brief argues that allowing an ADA aide to assist with communication would have cost nothing, interfered with nothing, and likely prevented years of wrongful prosecution and litigation.

Instead, officers chose denial—and the consequences followed.

---

What Happens Next

The Second Circuit will decide whether the district court improperly dismissed the case despite acknowledged disputes of fact. If reversed, the case will return to trial, where a jury—not a summary judgment order—will determine whether disability discrimination occurred.

At stake is a simple but profound principle:

Disabled people are entitled to meaningful access to the justice system—especially when their liberty is on the line.

---

Read More / Case Documents

The full appellate reply brief was filed on December 26, 2025, and is part of the official federal court record GetMergedFile.

Updates will be posted here as the appeal progresses.