Antolini v. Nieves

Background

Dino Antolini sued Barbara Nieves, 195 10th Avenue LLC, Gaspare Villa, Anna DaSilva, and Sonny Lou, Inc., seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. He alleged 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.

The restaurant Pepe Giallo operated in the ground-floor commercial unit of a building owned by 195 10th Avenue LLC. Antolini, who has Ataxia and has used a wheelchair for decades, visited the restaurant in August 2019 but could not enter because the front door was raised above the sidewalk. He alleged several accessibility barriers, including the entrance, routes, service counter, exit access, and restroom.

Standing

The defendants argued that Antolini lacked standing—the legal requirement that a plaintiff show an actual injury connected to the defendants’ conduct and likely to be remedied by a court order. The court rejected that argument. It found that Antolini’s inability to enter the restaurant was an injury and that his statements about wanting and intending to return, together with his proximity to the restaurant and interest in dining out, were enough to show a future risk of harm.

ADA Claims

The court granted summary judgment on Antolini’s ADA claims. Summary judgment is a decision entered without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

For the ADA barrier-removal claim, Antolini had to present a plausible proposal for removing the entrance barrier at a cost that did not clearly exceed the benefits. The court found that his expert’s initial report did not provide a proposal, measurements, cost estimate, or cost-benefit analysis. The report only stated that there should be an exterior wheelchair ramp. The court also gave no weight to a later expert declaration because it contradicted the earlier report and was submitted during summary-judgment briefing.

The court further ruled that, even if Antolini had met his initial burden, the defendants showed that removing the barrier was not readily achievable. “Readily achievable” means easily accomplishable and possible without much difficulty or expense. The defendants’ expert examined several ramp designs and concluded that each would create violations of building, fire, sidewalk-clearance, or other applicable requirements. Antolini did not refute those findings. The court therefore held that there was no legally compliant, readily achievable way to remove the entrance barrier.

The court separately considered the ADA’s requirements for alterations made after January 26, 1992. It found that Antolini had not shown that an alteration covered by that provision occurred, identified what was altered or when, or proposed how any alteration could have been made accessible. The court added that the defendants’ evidence showed that proposed changes would create illegal conditions and would be virtually impossible given the facility’s design.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

After dismissing the federal ADA claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over Antolini’s claims under state and city law and his negligence claim. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to being refiled in state court.

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed Antolini’s claims in their entirety, directed the Clerk’s Office to terminate the motion, and closed the case.