Terrell Thomas, Plaintiffv.Ariel West, Hudson Island, LLC, and Urban Outfitters, Inc., Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff Terrell Thomas (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against defendants Ariel West, Hudson Island, LLC (“Hudson Island”), and Urban Outfitters, Inc. (“Urban,” and collectively, “Defendants”), asserting claims of disability discrimination under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§12181 et seq., New York State Executive Law §296, New York State Civil Rights Law §40, and section 8-107 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, as well as a claim of common-law negligence. Plaintiff’s claims concern the accessibility of certain areas and features of an Urban Outfitters store in New York, New York to persons using wheelchairs. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343, and supplemental jurisdiction of Thomas’s related city and state anti-discrimination law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a). Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. (Docket Entry Nos. 109 and 114.) By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 15, 2017, the Court dismissed certain of Plaintiff’s claims as moot and denied Defendants’ alternative motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s ADA, and city and state anti-discrimination law claims relating to dressing rooms located on a mezzanine area of the store (the “Mezzanine”) and the use of a landing on the staircase between the cellar and the street-level floor (the “Landing”) where merchandise was located for sale. Thomas v. West, 242 F. Supp. 3d 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (the “Opinion”). Finding that the record might support summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on the Mezzanine and Landing claims, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause as to why summary judgment should not be granted against them to that extent. (Docket Entry No. 134.)The parties attempted to settle and then briefed the issues raised in the order to show cause. After considering the submissions of both parties carefully, the Court now grants summary judgment to Plaintiff on his ADA, and state and city anti-discrimination law, claims regarding the Landing and Mezzanine.BACKGROUNDFamiliarity with the underlying facts of this case, as summarized in the Opinion, are presumed. The following background summary focuses on facts, which are undisputed unless otherwise indicated, that are pertinent to the question of whether Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment with respect to the Mezzanine and Landing.The subject Urban Outfitters retail clothing store (“Store 143″) consists of a cellar (“Story 1″), a street-level floor (“Story 2″), and a Mezzanine above Story 2. (Def.’s 56.1 St.
