Franco v. 380 Second LLC

Background

Milagros Franco sued Small Door Gramercy LLC and 380 Second LLC. Small Door operates a veterinary clinic in a building owned by 380 Second. Franco alleged that the clinic was not wheelchair accessible in violation of federal, state, and city law. The defendants moved for summary judgment on Franco’s claims, and each defendant sought summary judgment on indemnification claims against the other. Indemnification is a contractual obligation to cover specified losses, liabilities, or expenses.

Franco’s accessibility claims

The defendants argued that Franco lacked standing, meaning that she could not bring the claims in federal court. The court concluded that those arguments mainly challenged the credibility of Franco’s testimony about the barriers she encountered and her desire to return. The court stated that credibility could not be decided at the summary-judgment stage. It also held that if Franco had standing to seek an injunction concerning one accessibility barrier, she could seek removal of all barriers she was likely to encounter inside the facility.

The court found that summary judgment was not appropriate on several accessibility issues. First, although the defendants said they had replaced a portable ramp with a permanent ramp, the record was unclear about both the applicable requirements and the ramp’s compliance. The court noted that the defendants appeared to concede at the hearing that at least some portions of the ramp might not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Second, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that an accessible exam room next to reception necessarily made the clinic accessible overall. The court found that there was not enough undisputed evidence to establish accessibility as a matter of law when only one exam room was wheelchair accessible and other parts of the clinic could not be accessed.

Third, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that Franco’s bathroom claim was moot because they had designated the bathroom for employees only. A claim is moot when a court can no longer grant effective relief. The court held that the defendants had not shown that the alleged problem could not reasonably recur because they had made no permanent change to the bathroom.

The court granted summary judgment on specific alleged barriers in the reception area and exam rooms. Franco’s expert had identified issues including inaccessible seating, noncompliant ground space, an unreachable coffee machine, signs without Braille, a door requiring excessive force, and sinks and exam tables above the stated height. The defendants argued that some issues had been corrected and that other conditions were not violations. Because Franco did not respond to those arguments, the court treated them as conceded.

The court denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Franco’s state and city law claims for the same reasons it denied summary judgment on the related federal accessibility claims.

Indemnification crossclaims

Small Door argued that its lease prohibited it from installing or permitting certain exterior structures, including structures closing storefront entrances. It contended that it should not be liable to Franco to the extent 380 Second created or permitted exterior access barriers.

The court found that Small Door’s argument failed to address other lease provisions. Those provisions required Small Door, at its own expense, to comply with all applicable laws and made Small Door exclusively responsible for complying with accessibility requirements concerning the interior of the leased premises, including access and egress. The lease also required Small Door to defend, indemnify, and hold 380 Second harmless from claims and expenses arising from Small Door’s breach of its lease obligations.

The court concluded that, if Small Door failed to make the premises legally compliant as alleged, the lease required Small Door to indemnify 380 Second for liability resulting from that failure. The court also noted that federal accessibility regulations permit landlords and tenants to allocate responsibility for compliance through a lease. Small Door’s brief reference to a New York statute limiting certain agreements that shift liability did not persuade the court because Small Door did not explain why that statute applied, and Franco’s case did not assert negligence or physical injury claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Franco’s claims. It denied Small Door’s motion for summary judgment on its indemnification crossclaim and granted 380 Second’s motion for summary judgment on its indemnification crossclaim. Judge Arun Subramanian directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at Docket 89 and Docket 95.