A cheerless workaholic?s attempt to mercy kill her ailing grandfather goes spectacularly wrong when his easygoing caregiver Kyle takes the euthanasia pill instead. Overwhelmed with guilt, Joy dives down a rabbit-hole in New York City on a 24-hour quest for a cure while also giving Kyle the best last day of his life (just in case!).

That’s a fresh premise!

>> A cheerless workaholic?s

With the predicament she gets into, it’s hard to see what these two flaws add to the story. One flaw for the logline is usually enough, though sometimes there is no significant flaw and it’s more about the innocent (or innocent-ish) protag dealing with the issue.

>> to mercy kill her ailing grandfather

Consider that he pressures her to do it or there’s some other mixup with the same result. Even for a comedy, I’m not sure I’d care for the protag otherwise.

>> goes spectacularly wrong

Redundant, the action conveys this.

>> Kyle…Joy

Cut the names.

>> dives down a rabbit-hole

Seems to say make-believe is involved. Is that the case? If yes, clarify. If no, cut as it would be redundant with a clearer A Story.

>> on a 24-hour quest for a cure while also giving Kyle the best last day of his life (just in case!).

Hard to see how both are active and simultaneous objectives. Is one more of the A Story?

By shortening other parts, there would be room to clarify the cure quest, if that’s the A Story. Does she have to go to a particular place? Is she seeking a particular person or ingredient? What is the conflict in trying to achieve something like this?