De La Rosa v. 650 Sixth Ave Trevi LLC

Background

Joyce De La Rosa alleged that The Men’s Wearhouse store at 650 Sixth Avenue in Manhattan was inaccessible to people who use wheelchairs. She alleged that the store had an eight-inch step at its entrance. The case included claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The parties had filed a joint pretrial order, and trial was scheduled to begin on February 3, 2020.

The defendants filed three motions in limine, meaning pretrial requests to prevent particular evidence from being presented at trial. They sought to exclude: (1) the report and testimony of Plaintiff’s expert, Jimmy Zuehl; (2) 2001 architectural designs for The Children’s Place, the prior tenant of the space; and (3) photographs of storefronts next to the Men’s Wearhouse location.

Expert Testimony

Zuehl inspected the store in 2014 and opined that several features did not comply with accessibility standards, including the entrance, dressing rooms, emergency exit, service counter, routes of travel, and product access. The defendants argued that his testimony did not require specialized knowledge, that he was not qualified because he was not a licensed architect, and that his inspection was too old to be relevant.

The Court applied Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which permits qualified experts to testify when their specialized knowledge will help decide an issue, their opinions rely on sufficient facts and reliable methods, and they reliably apply those methods. The Court ruled that Zuehl’s architectural accessibility consulting work, more than fifteen years of design and construction experience, and related project-management and architecture experience qualified him to testify about compliance with accessibility standards. The Court also found that his opinions could help resolve a central issue in the case. Any changes to the store after his 2014 inspection affected the weight of his testimony—how persuasive it was—not whether it could be admitted. The motion to exclude his report and testimony was denied.

2001 Architectural Designs

The defendants argued that the designs for The Children’s Place were irrelevant because they might not show how the prior tenant’s ramp was actually built, and that the designs could not be authenticated. The Court found the designs relevant because they provided evidence about the store’s condition before the defendants altered the entrance and could support De La Rosa’s argument that an accessible entrance on the left side was not virtually impossible to design or build.

The Court also ruled that Joe Avallone, a senior project manager for the architectural firm that designed the prior tenant’s space, could authenticate the designs because he testified that he recognized them and knew what they depicted. The motion to exclude the designs was denied. The Court noted that whether the ramp was actually built according to the designs could affect the evidence’s value, but did not require excluding it.

Photographs of Nearby Storefronts

The defendants sought to exclude three Google Maps photographs showing the adjacent storefront in 2011, 2014, and 2018. The photographs showed different entrance conditions, including entrances that were level with the sidewalk in 2014 and 2018. De La Rosa argued that the photographs could counter the defendants’ explanation that a structural steel beam made an accessible entrance impossible.

The Court ruled that the photographs were relevant because they could support De La Rosa’s contention that an accessible entrance similar to the neighboring storefront’s entrance could have been created. The defendants’ argument that the neighboring storefront’s internal and external conditions might not have been connected to the Men’s Wearhouse location went to the evidence’s persuasive value rather than its admissibility. The photographs could be admitted if De La Rosa called a witness who properly authenticated them.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni denied the defendants’ motion to preclude Zuehl from offering his report or testifying, denied the motion to exclude the 2001 designs of The Children’s Place, and denied the motion to exclude pictures of the nearby storefront. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the three motions at docket entries 109 through 111.