You are here: / / THE FACT THAT THE CITY BUILDING CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DISABLED-ACCESS TO...
,

THE FACT THAT THE CITY BUILDING CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DISABLED-ACCESS TO THE THIRD FLOOR OF DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT CONFLICT WITH THE FACT THAT THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW MAY REQUIRE SUCH ACCESS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff, a disabled wheelchair user, had standing to bring a discrimination action against defendant restaurant alleging the third floor of the restaurant was not accessible. The fact that the NYC Building Code did not require disabled-access to the third floor based on the square-footage did not conflict with the Human Rights Law which may require access:

The Building Code and disability discrimination laws serve different purposes and can easily be enforced and harmonized. The Building Code serves foremost to ensure safety in construction and maintenance of structures. The accessibility provision at issue simply states that no disabled access is required for building areas which measure less than 2,500 square feet. The provision does not prohibit building owners from providing such access — it simply provides that, for purposes of the Building Code, no such access is required.

The disability discrimination laws are designed, as pertinent here, to ensure that disabled persons have reasonable access to public accommodations. While the Building Code might not require disabled access under the circumstances present here, this does not mean that more may not be required under the State and City Human Rights Laws’ (HRLs) disability discrimination provisions. In this, there is no conflict. To the extent there is any tension between the Building Code’s provisions and the HRLs, such tension may be remedied by the rule of reasonableness which is an integral component of the HRLs’ requirement that disabled persons be reasonably accommodated (see Executive Law § 296[c][i]; Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107[15][b]). Jones v McDonald’s Corp., 2022 NY Slip Op 00814, First Dept 2-8-22

 

You might also like
A CORPORATION (HERE A COOPERATIVE) DOES NOT OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS; THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS MAY OWE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE SHAREHOLDERS FOR INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS BUT NO ALLEGATIONS OF WRONGDOING BY BOARD MEMBERS WERE MADE (FIRST DEPT).
DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY DEMONSTRATED THE WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT WAS CONFIRMATORY, HEARSAY IS ADMISSIBLE AT A RODRIGUEZ HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
THE GUARANTOR OF RENT DUE UNDER A LEASE FOR A BARBERSHOP FORCED TO CLOSE BY THE NYS GOVERNOR DURING COVID WAS RELIEVED OF LIABILITY FOR ONLY THE COVID-PERIOD COVERED BY NYC’S GUARANTY LAW (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO HOLD BACK A HAND TRUCK WITH A 500 POUND LOAD AS HE WAS DESCENDING STAIRS; IT WAS POSSIBLE TO LOWER THE LOAD USING RIGGING IN AN ELEVATOR SHAFTWAY BUT PLAINTIFF WAS DIRECTED TO USE THE STAIRS; PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE ATTEMPTED GANG ASSAULT CHARGE WAS A LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY FOR TRIAL PURPOSES (FIRST DEPT).
MEETINGS OF NYC SCHOOL LEADERSHIP TEAMS ARE SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW.
A VIDEO CAMERA HAD BEEN INSTALLED IN A GRAPEFRUIT-SIZED HOLE BEHIND A TOILET IN A WOMEN’S RESTROOM AND VIDEO HAD BEEN RECOVERED; OVERRULING PRECEDENT, THE FIRST DEPARTMENT HELD THAT “EXTREME AND OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT” IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND THAT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS REINSTATED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF INJURED BY A PORTION OF A ROOF WHICH FELL ON HIM UNEXPECTEDLY WHEN ANOTHER PORTION OF THE ROOF WAS BEING DEMOLISHED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DENIED, PROPERTY MANAGER COULD BE LIABLE AS AGENT OF OWNER.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE AND SNOW... PLAINTIFF STARTED AN ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN NEW YORK; THEN DEFENDANT STARTED...