issue of fact that her case of diabetes is a covered disability. See id. at 483-84, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (stating that it would be “contrary to both the letter and spirit of the ADA” to cover a “diabetic whose illness does not impair his or her daily activities” on the theory that “if [she] failed to monitor [her] blood sugar levels and administer insulin, [she] would almost certainly be limited in one or more major life activities”); Schaefer v. State Ins. Fund, 207 F.3d 139, 143 (2d Cir.2000) (vacating denial of summary judgment and remanding in light of Sutton to determine if Plaintiff had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether her “Type II” diabetes was an ADA-covered disability); Teachout v. N.Y. City Dep’t. of Ed., No. 04-CV-945, 2006 WL 452022, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2006) (<HOLDING>); Sepulveda v. Glickman, 167 F.Supp.2d 186, 191
holding that fathers act of twice striking son in the face splitting his lip and forcing child to eat food as punishment for childs failure to eat the dinner father prepared and served was not felony child abuse as a matter of law holding that a perceived impairment that prevented the plaintiff from successfully applying for a position as a police officer for the city of new york did not constitute a substantial limitation of a major life activity recognizing that to establish a disability a plaintiff must prove a substantial limit with specific evidence that his particular impairment substantially limits his particular major life activity holding that plaintiff had not raised a triable issue of fact as to impairment of eating as substantial life activity where his diabetes required him to eat regular and small meals holding no triable issue of fact existed where employee had not asked for accommodation