Jimmy Wagner, Brooklyn, for appellant.

Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York (Rebecca L. Visgaitis of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered December 7, 2022, which, upon reargument, adhered to its prior order, which, among other things, denied the petition to annul the determination of respondents, dated March 28, 2022, denying petitioner's request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for employees of the New York City Department of Education, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the determination was arbitrary and capricious or made in violation of lawful procedure (CPLR 7803 [3]). The City of New York Reasonable Accommodation Appeals Panel (the Citywide Panel) had a rational basis for finding that petitioner "failed to establish that [her] objection to receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccines was based on a sincerely held religious belief" (Matter of Hogue v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 220 AD3d 416, 416 [1st Dept 2023]). Among other things, in response to questions posed by the Citywide Panel, petitioner failed to clarify whether she had refused to take any other vaccines or medication based on her religious beliefs (see id. at 416; Matter of Marsteller v City of New York, 217 AD3d 543, 544 [1st Dept 2023]).

We reject petitioner's argument that respondents failed to engage in a cooperative dialogue (see id. at 545).

We have considered petitioner's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Oing, Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, JJ.