to his ability to eat and digest food, simply do not rise to a substantial level.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Shields v. Robinson-Van Vuren Assocs., No. 98-CV-8785, 2000 WL 565191, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 2000) (finding that dietary modification required to control Plaintiffs diabetes mellitus does not constitute a restriction on the activity of eating and noting that it is the nature of the limitation that is at issue); accord Land v. Baptist Med. Ctr., 164 F.3d 423, 425 (8th Cir.1999) (affirming summary judgment on basis that child with potentially li ndition is a cognizable disability under the NYHRL, but the Court finds that at least a triable issue of fact has been raised on the matter. See Epstein v. Kalvin-Miller Int’l, Inc., 100 F.Supp.2d 222, 229-30 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>). The NYHRL requires an employer to “provide
holding plaintiffs type ii diabetes even as treated to be nyhrlcovered medical disability holding that an individual alleged a disability under the ada because he was blind in one eye and had severe diabetes causing him to fall asleep at unpredictable times holding that title ii does not apply to the states holding that motion to dismiss cannot be treated as summary judgment holding that title ii of the ada is not applicable to the federal government