peanut allergy was not severely-limited in life activity, although consequences of failing to control food intake for nut contamination could include death). As a matter of law, Plaintiffs limitations on eating are not sufficiently substantial so as to be covered under the ADA. Additionally, Plaintiff claims to be entitled to relief for her diabetes under the NYHRL. “The NYHRL definition of disability is construed more broadly than under the ADA and does not impose the requirement that the impairment substantially limit the individual’s normal activities.” Harewood v. Beth Israel Med. Ctr., No. 02-CV-5511, 2003 WL 21373279, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 13, 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Reeves v. Johnson Controls World Servs., 140 F.3d 144, 155-56 (2d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). The Parties did not brief whether Plaintiffs
holding that certification is appropriate if the new york court of appeals has not squarely addressed an issue and other decisions by new york courts are insufficient to predict how the court of appeals would resolve it internal quotation marks omitted recognizing in a new york diversity action that the job of the federal courts is to give the fullest weight to the pronouncements of the new york court of appeals to have a proper regard to relevant rulings of other courts of the state and where appropriate give limited consideration to relevant cases from other jurisdictions holding that dalessio did not justify removal where the gravamen of plaintiffs complaint was that defendants made materially false statements to them in a manner prohibited by new york law and in violation of duties created by new york law and no construction or interpretation of federal law was required holding that federal courts must apply new york court of appeals construction of nyhrl which is broader than ada and requires only an impairment that is demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques recognizing a split of authority regarding whether the nyhrl like the new york city human rights law includes an instate impact requirement and holding that it does