Askins v. Prestige Management Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00461
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Delroy Askins v. Prestige Management, Judge Wood dismissed Askins’s amended disability-discrimination claims for failure to state a claim.
Delroy Askins’s amended federal disability-discrimination claims were dismissed. The court declined to hear any state-law claims he may have asserted and denied further permission to amend; Prestige Management Inc. and Lowell Hendricks were the defendants in the dismissed action.
What happened
In Delroy Askins v. Prestige Management Inc.; Lowell Hendricks, Delroy Askins alleged that his apartment-building superintendent assaulted him, denied him access to a community room, and was connected to missing medical supplies. Askins also alleged that these events violated disability-discrimination laws.
The court assumed that Askins had a disability and that the building was covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. But it found that he did not allege facts showing that his disability motivated the assault, denial of community-room access, or missing supplies. The court also found that his Fair Housing Act claims lacked facts suggesting disability-based motivation.
Judge Kimba M. Wood dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, declined to exercise jurisdiction over any state-law claims, denied further permission to amend, and directed entry of judgment. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Askins v. Prestige Management Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00461
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 18, 2025
Background
Delroy Askins proceeded without a lawyer and received permission to file without paying the filing fee. He sued Prestige Management Inc. and Lowell Hendricks, whom the court understood to be the superintendent of Askins’s apartment building.
In his amended complaint, Askins alleged that he is 62 years old, uses a wheelchair because of a spinal cord injury, and needs catheter supplies for his daily activities. He alleged that on January 10, 2024, the superintendent yelled at him, confronted him near an elevator, and then choked and punched him. Askins alleged that the attack happened because of his disability. He also alleged that building security did not help him and that management did not follow up.
Askins further alleged that medical supplies delivered to the building later went missing and that a police officer reviewing security footage found that the video appeared to skip. He alleged that on November 8, 2024, the superintendent denied him access to the community room after Askins said he planned to use it with his great nephew. Askins sought $10 million in damages and an order requiring cameras in the building’s blind spots.
Prior dismissal and amended complaint
An earlier order by Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Askins’s original complaint for failure to state a claim and allowed him to amend claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act. That order also concluded that the defendants were private parties and that the original complaint did not adequately allege constitutional claims against government actors.
Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act
The court stated that Titles I and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act did not apply to Askins’s claims. It assumed, for purposes of the order, that Askins lived in public housing covered by Title II of the Act and that the building received federal funding, making the Rehabilitation Act potentially applicable. It also assumed that Askins had adequately alleged a disability under both statutes.
The court explained that these laws require facts showing that the plaintiff has a qualifying disability, that the defendant is covered by the law, and that the plaintiff was denied services or otherwise discriminated against because of the disability. The court found that Askins did not allege facts connecting his disability to the missing medical supplies or the denial of access to the community room. As to the alleged assault, the court found that Askins’s statements that he was attacked because of his disability were speculative and unsupported by additional facts. The court therefore dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act claims for failure to state a claim.
Fair Housing Act
The court explained that the Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on disability, including discrimination in the terms or conditions of housing and in related services or facilities. It again assumed that Askins had adequately alleged a disability. But it found that his allegations did not suggest that disability was a motivating factor in any action taken by the defendants. The court therefore dismissed the Fair Housing Act claims for failure to state a claim.
State-law claims and further amendment
After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims Askins might be asserting.
The court also denied another opportunity to amend. It reasoned that Askins had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint and that the amended complaint did not indicate that its defects could be cured by another amendment.
Disposition
The court dismissed Askins’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appellate filing fee. The order stated that nothing in it limited Askins’s right to seek any relief available in state court.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.