Adams v. 46 N LLC

Background

Joshua Adams sued 46 N LLC and Little Guilty Pleasures LLC under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The opinion states that 46 N LLC owned the property and Little Guilty Pleasures LLC leased and operated the business known as Crispy Heaven at 38 Grand Street in New York, New York. Adams, who uses a wheelchair, alleged that he visited Crispy Heaven approximately eight times in July, September, and December 2021 but could not enter or use the business because of architectural barriers.

The alleged barriers included interior steps at the entrance, missing handrail extensions, a raised dining area without a wheelchair ramp, a service counter that was too high, and inaccessible restroom features. Adams alleged that he intended to return in the near future but would again be unable to use the facility because of those barriers. He also alleged that he lived less than 2.9 miles away, passed the facility at least once a week, and visited nearby restaurants three or four times per month.

Adams filed an amended complaint after the court previously raised concerns about whether his original allegations adequately showed standing to seek an injunction. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Adams had not adequately pleaded standing. They also argued that the case was moot because they had installed a bell and decal for assistance and requested a remedy, including possible sanctions, based on what they characterized as frivolous or repetitive ADA litigation.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that Article III standing requires an injury in fact, a connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable decision will remedy the injury. A person seeking an injunction must also show a real and immediate likelihood of future harm, not merely past harm.

The court held that Adams adequately alleged past injury. His allegations identified the facility, described approximately eight visits during specific months, explained that he could not enter in his wheelchair, and identified particular architectural barriers. The court found these allegations sufficient to show that he had been denied access to the facility and its goods and services.

The court also found it reasonable to infer that the alleged discrimination would continue. Adams alleged that he visited the facility repeatedly over five months and that the barriers had not been corrected. The defendants’ alleged installation of an operational assistance bell did not necessarily resolve the claimed problems because, according to the court, the defendants had not explained how the bell addressed the steps, missing handrails, raised dining area, counter height, or restroom barriers.

Finally, the court found that Adams adequately alleged an intent to return. Although 2.9 miles was farther than the distance involved in one case discussed by the court, Adams alleged that he regularly visited the surrounding neighborhood, passed the facility weekly, dined at nearby restaurants several times a month, and would dine at Crispy Heaven if he could enter. Considering the allegations as a whole, the court found a sufficient likelihood that Adams would return and face future injury.

The court also declined to impose the requested sanctions based on Adams’s litigation history. It stated that Adams had alleged sufficiently particularized facts about the facility, the access barriers, and his interactions with the facility, and that giving undue weight to his past litigation tactics would conflict with the ADA’s remedial purpose.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety and resolved docket entry no. 17. The court directed the defendants to file an answer to the First Amended Complaint by March 15, 2023, and stated that the case would be referred for general pretrial management and mediation. The order addressed standing and other threshold arguments; it did not decide whether the alleged ADA violations ultimately occurred.