Sutton v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company

Background

Stason Sutton sued Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company for injunctive relief and damages, alleging discrimination under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and common-law negligence. Massachusetts Mutual moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts required dismissal of the complaint.

Massachusetts Mutual owns RB Apartments LLC, which owns a 46-story mixed-use property at the northeast corner of West 42nd Street and 11th Avenue. The property includes retail spaces, a residential entrance, and a theater. During exterior renovations in 2011 and 2012, Massachusetts Mutual removed stairs leading to the storefronts and installed an elevated walkway in front of the entrances. The elevated walkway can be reached through eight stairways and through a sloped walkway on 42nd Street at the eastern end of the property.

Sutton regularly visited the 7-Eleven at the western end of the property. When approaching from the west, he had to travel about 200 feet east along the sidewalk to reach the sloped walkway and then return along the property to reach the store. Sutton acknowledged that, when traveling west on 42nd Street from 10th Avenue toward 11th Avenue, the sloped walkway was the most convenient access point.

Evidence ruling

The court considered whether to rely on portions of a declaration by John W. Thompson, Jr., P.E. Massachusetts Mutual had identified Thompson as a fact witness, not an expert witness. The court accepted portions based on his firsthand knowledge of the property’s construction and design, but disregarded portions that offered legal opinions about accessibility or opinions based on specialized technical knowledge that would constitute expert testimony.

ADA claim

Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of places of public accommodation. The court stated that Sutton and Massachusetts Mutual did not dispute that Sutton was disabled within the meaning of the ADA, that the property was a place of public accommodation, or that the property had undergone an alteration. The dispute was whether Massachusetts Mutual’s alterations discriminated against Sutton.

The court applied the ADA standards governing altered facilities. It held that the sloped walkway supplied at least one accessible route from public sidewalks, crosswalks, and nearby public transportation to the property. The walkway was within 200 feet of the 42nd Street bus stop and the corner of 42nd Street and 11th Avenue. It connected the sidewalk to the elevated walkway and was in the same general area as the property’s residential entrance and theater.

The court rejected Sutton’s argument that the ADA required an accessible route at the corner of 42nd Street and 11th Avenue. The ADA did not give him the right to select a particular accessible path when another accessible route was available. The court also rejected his argument that 60 percent of the elevated walkway’s access points had to be accessible. It explained that the applicable requirement concerned entrances to buildings—such as doors, doorways, and gates—not access points to the elevated walkway itself.

The court further rejected Sutton’s argument that the longer route from 11th Avenue violated the ADA. It distinguished a case involving a twenty-minute round-trip detour that substantially reduced a person’s participation in a school activity. The court found that Sutton’s additional 200 feet in each direction when approaching from 11th Avenue did not impose a comparable burden.

Finally, the court held that Sutton had not presented enough evidence to create a factual dispute over whether the sloped walkway coincided with the general public’s route to the maximum extent feasible. Massachusetts Mutual asserted that the walkway was located where the property had the lowest elevation relative to the sidewalk, creating a gentler slope. Sutton provided no evidence showing that the walkway failed to meet the applicable standard.

State and city claims

After dismissing the ADA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over Sutton’s claims under New York state and city law and his negligence claim. The court therefore dismissed those claims as well. The opinion noted that Sutton’s memorandum contained a heading stating that he withdrew his negligence claim, but the court found the meaning of that heading unclear and addressed the negligence claim.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted Massachusetts Mutual’s motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed Sutton’s claims in their entirety, directed the Clerk’s Office to terminate the motion, and closed the case.