Lugo v. St. Nicholas Associates

• Decision Date: 24 May 2005
• Docket Number: 6015.
• Citation: 2005 NY Slip Op 04140,795 N.Y.S.2d 227,18 A.D.3d 341
• Parties: PILAR LUGO, Respondent-Appellant, v. ST. NICHOLAS ASSOCIATES et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

18 A.D.3d 341

795 N.Y.S.2d 227

2005 NY Slip Op 04140

PILAR LUGO, Respondent-Appellant, v. ST. NICHOLAS ASSOCIATES et al., Appellants-Respondents, et al., Defendant.

6015.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

May 24, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered July 16, 2003, which granted the motion of St. Nicholas Associates and the Stahl codefendants for summary judgment only to the extent of dismissing the complaint and cross claims against individual defendants Michael and Stanley Stahl, unanimously modified, on the law, summary judgment granted to defendants St. Nicholas Associates and Stahl Associates, dismissing the complaint and cross claims against them as well, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff, a home health care aide for the disabled, fell at a building owned by defendant St. Nicholas Associates and managed by defendant Stahl Associates as she attempted to lower a wheelchair-bound client down a short indoor stairway. Plaintiff contends that her accident and injuries resulted from defendants' violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ([ADA] 42 USC § 12182 et seq.) in failing to provide an appropriate means of egress.

ADA allows litigants to pursue actions only for injunctive relief, and does not provide a private right of action for monetary damages in a personal injury action (see 42 USC § 12188 [a]; § 2000a-3 [a]; Hunt v Meharry Med. Coll., 2000 WL 739551, *6-7, 2000 US Dist LEXIS 7804, *17-19 [SD NY 2000]). Since ADA's purpose is to address issues of discrimination and not safety, the act should not be construed as setting a safety standard for stairs or walkways, even with respect to disabled plaintiffs (cf. Rocovich v Consolidated Edison Co., 78 NY2d 509, 513 [1991]). In light of the statute's overriding purpose of eliminating discrimination against the disabled, and given that Congress did not include a private right of action even for direct and intentional discrimination, there is no discernible reason why the motion court, or any court, should use ADA as a safety standard to create new and wide-ranging liabilities on building owners. Turning ADA into a safety standard would, in effect, require building owners to refurbish buildings immediately or face potential tort liability to the disabled or persons associated with them for accidents occurring during their attempts to...