Maury v. Ventura In Manhattan, Inc.

Background

Julie Maury, who is disabled and uses a wheelchair, sued Ventura In Manhattan, Inc., the property’s landlord, and VSM NY Holdings LLC, the current tenant, over accessibility barriers at a Fairway Market grocery store. She alleged that the store was not readily accessible and identified at least 27 barriers, including narrow pathways, high food-service counters, and inaccessible checkout aisles. Her claims arose under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which addresses access to public accommodations, and related New York State and New York City laws.

The predecessor tenant, Fairway East 86th Street LLC, filed for bankruptcy. VSM later bought assets connected to the store in a bankruptcy-approved sale that closed on May 14, 2020. Maury dropped the predecessor tenant from the case and added VSM. Her amended complaint limited the claims against VSM to conduct and store conditions occurring after the sale, while continuing to seek relief against Ventura for the earlier period as well.

Motion to Dismiss

VSM moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. VSM argued first that the bankruptcy court’s sale order barred Maury’s claims. It argued alternatively that Maury had not plausibly alleged that VSM made alterations to the store without making the premises accessible to the maximum extent feasible.

Bankruptcy-Sale Argument

The court held that the sale order did not bar Maury’s claims against VSM. The order’s protections covered claims arising from the predecessor tenant’s business and earlier conduct, but Maury’s claims against VSM were limited to VSM’s conduct and the store’s conditions after May 2020. The court concluded that those post-sale claims fell within liabilities VSM assumed after the bankruptcy sale.

The court also explained that the injunctive relief Maury sought under Title III of the ADA was not the type of claim extinguished by the sale. Title III generally permits a private individual to obtain an order requiring removal of access barriers, but not damages. The court rejected the idea that the bankruptcy sale gave VSM continuing permission to violate disability-access laws after the sale.

Adequacy of the Pleading

The court held that Maury adequately pleaded her ADA claim. To state a Title III claim, she needed to allege that she was disabled, that VSM owned, leased, or operated a public accommodation, and that VSM denied her a full and equal opportunity to use the store’s services. The court found that the complaint alleged each of those points through Maury’s wheelchair use, VSM’s connection to the store, and the barriers that made her shopping more difficult and time-consuming.

The court said that proving VSM had made alterations was one possible way to establish ADA liability, but it was not required for Maury’s ADA claim. The complaint also asserted other possible grounds, including failure to remove barriers when removal was readily achievable and failure to provide reasonable alternatives. The court further held that the New York City Human Rights Law claim did not require proof that VSM had made alterations.

Although the court described Maury’s specific allegations about alterations as somewhat thin, it found them sufficient to plausibly allege that VSM remodeled the store and installed equipment upgrades after the sale. Whether VSM actually made the alleged alterations would be examined in discovery. The court noted that VSM could later seek partial summary judgment if the evidence did not support the alteration allegations.

Disposition

The court denied VSM’s motion to dismiss. The order allowed Maury’s claims against VSM to proceed but did not decide whether VSM ultimately violated the ADA, the New York City Human Rights Law, or any other law.