Antolini v. McCloskey

Background

Dino Antolini alleged that the defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York Civil Rights Law, the New York City Administrative Code, and common-law negligence. Antolini uses a wheelchair and claimed that he could not access Madame X, a cocktail bar operated by the defendants, because of inaccessible entrances and exits, routes through the bar, service counters, and restrooms.

The parties disputed accessibility conditions and renovations made in or around 2000, including changes to a bathroom door, a separate bar, walls, stairs, and handrails. Antolini’s expert, Billy Chen, submitted a three-page report in October 2020. After discovery closed on November 15, 2021, Chen submitted a declaration with Antolini’s summary-judgment opposition that expanded on the original report, responded to the defendants’ experts, and proposed ways to remove barriers. The defendants moved for summary judgment.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Review

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting the defendants’ motion and dismissing the complaint. The district court explained that portions of a report and recommendation without proper objections are reviewed for clear error, meaning the court asks whether the record leaves a firm conviction that a mistake was made. No proper objections were filed. A filing labeled as objections was disregarded because it asked only to vacate or stay sanctions imposed in a separate order.

The district court adopted the report and recommendation in full after clear-error review. It agreed that the Chen declaration could be disregarded under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 because it attempted to fill gaps in the original expert report after discovery had closed, and Antolini did not show that the late submission was substantially justified or harmless.

ADA Analysis

For the ADA claims, the court stated that a plaintiff must show that he is disabled, that the defendants own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation, and that the defendants discriminated against him within the meaning of the ADA.

The court agreed that the claims concerning the routes, service counter, and restrooms were governed by the ADA’s alteration standard because evidence showed renovations in those areas. Under that standard, altered areas and certain paths of travel must be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible. The court agreed that the entrance and exit claims were governed by the standard for existing facilities because there was no evidence that the exterior had been altered.

The court concluded that the original Chen Report did not provide an alternative to the altered features or existing barriers and therefore did not satisfy Antolini’s initial burden of proving the ADA claims. The court also agreed that the magistrate judge properly recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It further agreed that the negligence claim should be dismissed because Antolini had not alleged an injury beyond being unable to access Madame X.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.