Gannon v. 124 East 40th Street LLC

Background

Stephen Gannon brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He sought damages, an order requiring changes to the property, a declaration of his rights, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Gannon uses a manually powered wheelchair because of an amputation of his right leg. He alleged that he tried to visit a notary’s office at 124 East 40th Street on October 11, 2021, but could not enter because the property had a five- to seven-inch front step and no permanent accessibility ramp. He also alleged that there was no visible information explaining how wheelchair users could enter and no doorbell to summon assistance. The defendants said that a removable ramp, signage, and a doorbell were present.

Gannon stated that he intended to return to the property whenever he needed a document notarized. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.

ADA Standing

The court granted the motion because Gannon did not establish standing to seek injunctive relief under the ADA. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a personal, legally sufficient stake in the dispute. For an ADA claim seeking an order requiring future access, the plaintiff must show a past injury, a reasonable basis to believe the discriminatory condition will continue, and a sufficiently concrete intention to return to the property.

The court found that Gannon satisfied the first two requirements. His alleged inability to enter because of the step and lack of a permanent ramp showed a past injury, and the defendants’ position that the property’s alleged inaccessibility could not be corrected supported an inference that the condition would continue.

The court found the evidence of Gannon’s intent to return insufficient at the summary-judgment stage. He identified only one visit or attempted visit in 2021, did not describe earlier visits, and did not explain the nature or history of his relationship with the notary. He also lived 2.6 miles from the property at the time of the visit and later moved approximately four miles away. The court found no evidence that the location was convenient for him, that he frequently needed notarization, that he had a specific future document requiring notarization, or that this particular notary provided services especially important to him.

State and City Claims

The court held that Gannon also lacked standing to seek injunctive relief under the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law for the same reasons. To the extent the court had authority to decide Gannon’s claims for damages under those laws, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it declined to hear those state and city claims alongside the federal claim.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court did not immediately enter the promised dismissal of the case. Instead, Gannon was permitted to file, by September 20, 2024, a letter seeking permission to amend his complaint and attach a proposed amended complaint showing the changes. The court stated that if Gannon could not in good faith correct the identified deficiencies, or did not file the required letter, the case would be dismissed with prejudice.