Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village Sch. Dist v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 707, 114 S.Ct. 2481, 2493 (1994). See also, e.g., Turner v. Liverpool Central Sch., 186 F. Supp.2d 187, 192 (N.D.N.Y. 2002) (finding statutory exemption for those who "hold genuine and sincere religious beliefs" contrary to the practice of immunization sufficiently neutral to satisfy the secular purpose test). For example, adherents of particular religions or denominations known by the Department of Health to categorically oppose the practice of immunization, such as the Christian Science religion, are granted exemptions, while adherents of other religions or denominations, such as the Catholic faith, are denied exemptions based on their unofficial, personal interpretation of what their religion or faith requires.

Moore v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 03–2390, 2008 WL 191253, at *1 (E.D.La. Jan. 22, 2008) (quoting Redmond v. Alexander, 98 B.R. 557, 559 (D.Kan.1989)). But see Turner v. Liverpool Cent. Sch., 186 F.Supp.2d 187, 190 n. 5 (N.D.N.Y.2002) (considering post-pleading motion for declaratory judgment because “[e]ven where declaratory relief is not requested the courts may grant such relief where the pleading and proof show such to be appropriate”). Given that the parties have not briefed this issue, the Court will exercise its discretion and decline to enter a declaratory judgment.

“However, even where declaratory relief is not requested, the courts may grant such relief where the pleading and proof show it to be appropriate.” Serv. Trades Council v. Walt Disney World Co., 2008 WL 686916, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19122 (M.D.Fla. Mar. 11, 2008) (citing Turner v. Liverpool Cent. Sch., 186 F.Supp.2d 187, 190 n. 5 (N.D.N.Y.2002)).

However, even where declaratory relief is not requested, the courts may grant such relief where the pleading and proof show it to be appropriate. See, e.g., Turner v. Liverpool Cent. School, 186 F.Supp.2d 187, 190 n. 5 (N.D.N.Y. 2002).ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 21) filed by Defendant Walt Disney World Co. is DENIED.

Id. at 434. Plaintiff further relies on Turner v. Liverpool Cent. School, 186 F.Supp.2d 187 (N.D.N.Y.2002) where the district court wrote, " [e]ven where declaratory relief is not requested the courts may grant such relief where the pleading and proof show such to be appropriate." Id. at 190 n. 5.

Further, to the extent Petitioners attempt to allege that the supplemental information form itself was somehow improper, the Court must point out that the U.S. District Court, in evaluating the same supplemental information form, pointed out that the questions contained thereon did not "presuppose the illegitimacy of [religious] concerns about use of fetal cell lines" but rather, it "merely seeks to determine whether such concerns are the applicant's true motivation" for seeking the exemption. Ferrelli, supra, at *8; see also, U.S. v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185, 85 S.Ct. 850, 863 (1965) (noting that "while the 'truth' of a belief is not open to question, there remains the significant question of whether it is 'truly held'..[and] [t]his is the threshold question of sincerity which must be resolved in every case"); Turner v. Liverpool Cent. School, 186 F.Supp.2d 187, 193 (N.D.N.Y. 2022) (determining that an inquiry as to whether professed religious beliefs are genuine or sincere does not require an assessment as to the actual validity of said beliefs). The Court does not agree that the New York County Supreme Court determined in its recent Decision in Loiacono v. The Board of Education of the City of New York, et al., that "questioning the sincerity of the [Petitioner's] religious beliefs was improper" as indicated by Petitioners' counsel in his post-submission letter of July 14, 2022 (NYSCEF Docs. 71, 72).