Roberts v. Royal Atl. Corp.
| Decision Date | 05 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | CV 03-2494 (Wexler, J.) |
| Parties | JUNE ROBERTS, ANITA BRADLEY, ELIZABETH GARDNER, STEPHEN LEE and SUFFOLK INDEPENDENT LIVING ORGANIZATION (SILO), Plaintiffs, v. ROYAL ATLANTIC CORPORATION, ROYAL ATLANTIC NORTH CORPORATION, ROYAL ATLANTIC RESTAURANT CORPORATION, DOUBLE K MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, STAR DEVELOPMENT REALTY HOLDING CORPORATION, DES REALTY CORPORATION, OCEAN REALTY HOLDING CORP., STEVEN KALIMNIOS, ANTHONY KALIMNIOS and THEMISTOCLES KALIMNIOS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
APPEARANCES:
LAW OFFICE OF MARTIN J. COLEMAN
BY: MARTIN J. COLEMAN, ESQ.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ALAN M. KANE, ESQ.
Defendants Pro Se
This action was commenced in 2003 pursuant to Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 (the "ADA"), which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation. See 42 U.S.C. §12182 ("Title III"). Plaintiffs (with the exception of the corporate plaintiff organization) are disabled individuals who seek access to the rooms and facilities of the Royal Atlantic Resort, located in Montauk, New York (the "Resort"). As described below, and in greater detail in the previous opinions of this court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Resort consists of a group of cooperative apartments joined together in what looks like, and is marketed as, a single beachfront resort with pools and a restaurant. The cooperative units comprising the Resort are available for sale and re-sale. Individual owners are free to occupy their units exclusively, and are not required to make their units available for rental. If owners wish, however, they can make their units available forperiodic seasonal rental to members of the general public. The rental of units is facilitated by a management company (named as one of the Defendants herein) that handles rentals on behalf of unit owners who participate in the rental program. Owners who wish to rent their units simply make their units available to the management company, the company advertises and offers the units for rent, communicates with members of the public who wish to stay at the Resort, and facilitates the entire rental process on behalf of the unit owner, in exchange for a fee.
The originally named Defendants are various corporate entities and individuals with ownership and/or management interests in the Royal Atlantic.1 After: (1) a 2006 trial, Roberts v. Royal Atlantic, 445 F. Supp.2d 239 (E.D.N.Y. 2006); (2) a 2008 appeal, Roberts v. Royal Atlantic Corp., 542 F.3d 363 (2008); (3) a 2009 denial of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, Royal Atlantic Com, v. Roberts, 129 S. Ct. 1581 (2009), and, (4) this court's 2010 summary judgment decision on a motion made with respect to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Roberts v. Royal Atlantic Corp., 2010 WL 749944 (E.D.N.Y. 2010), Plaintiffs added a large group of individuals as Defendants. These Defendants are individual owners of units at the Resort. This case is now scheduled for a non-jury trial to commence on November 5,2012. Presently before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motions are denied.
The Court assumes familiarity with all prior proceedings herein, and reviews only briefly the decisions after the trial and appeal herein to identify those issues that have been held by the Second Circuit to be necessary for the upcoming trial.
In its 2006 opinion, this court noted that the Resort was built prior to 1992, and held that it underwent no "alterations," within the meaning of the ADA after that date. Royal Atlantic, 445 F. Supp.2d at 247. As such, the court held that Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that the modifications sought were "readily achievable," within the meaning of the ADA. Id. at 248. Ultimately, this court held that Plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of proving that the construction changes sought were readily achievable, and ordered the entry of judgment in favor of Defendants. Id.
On appeal, the Second Circuit held that this court applied the wrong legal standard and the wrong burden of proof to Plaintiffs' claims. The decision of this court was therefore vacated and remanded for a new trial. See Roberts v. Royal Atlantic Corp., 542 F.3d 363 (2008). Importantly, the Second Circuit held, as a matter of law, that renovations to the rooms at the Resort performed during 2000-2001, were "alterations," within the meaning of the ADA, i.e., changes "that [affect] or could affect the usability of the building or facility or any part thereof." Royal Atlantic, 542 F.3d at 369. As alterations, the ADA required the renovations to have beencompleted so as to make the units accessible to disabled individuals to the "maximum extent feasible." Id. at 371, quoting, 42 U.S.C. §12183(a)(2). The Second Circuit noted that ADA compliant renovations could have been implemented, at the time of the alteration, with a "relatively small marginal increase in difficulty and cost compared to the overall cost of the project." Id. at 374. Importantly, the Second Circuit noted that application of the proper standard involves no judgment regarding costs and benefits and, instead, "requires accessibility except where providing it would be 'virtually impossible.'" Royal Atlantic. 542 F.3d at 371.
In addition to holding that this court applied the wrong ADA standard, the Second Circuit held that this court utilized the wrong burden of proof. Specifically, the Second Circuit held that where, as here, alterations were made after 1992, a plaintiff bears only the burden to come forward with "some manner in which the alterations could be, or could have been made 'readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities .. ."' Id. at 371. The burden then shifts to the defendant to prove that the plaintiffs proposal would be "virtually impossible," in light of the nature of the facility. Id. As to application of the burden of proof in this case, the Second Circuit held, as a matter of law, that Plaintiffs satisfied their burden of production with regard to demonstrating that rooms could have been renovated at the time of alteration so as to make them wheelchair accessible. The court remanded the matter to this court to determine, upon application of the proper ADA alterations standard, whether Defendants can sustain their burden of proving that achieving wheelchair accessability to at least some of the units was "virtually impossible," in light of the "nature of the facility." Royal Atlantic. 542 F.3d at 375. The appellate court instructed this court that it could not consider the comparative cost or scope of the proposedrenovations. The court further reminded this court that the focus of its inquiry must be on the configuration of the units as of 2000-2001, the time of the alteration, and not in their present state. Id. Thus, as to room renovation to allow access the question to be answered at the upcoming trial, as identified by the Second Circuit, is whether Defendants can prove that, as of the time of the alteration, making a small number of the units wheelchair accessible was "virtually impossible," in light of the "nature of the facility." Id.
The Second Circuit also addressed the issues of access to the parking lot and pool areas. As to the parking lot, the Second Circuit concluded that the parking areas are along the "path of travel," to the altered rooms. As such, even if the lots were not "altered" after 1992, within the meaning of the ADA, they were still required to have been made accessible to the maximum extent feasible. The paths, however, need only have been made accessible from a parking space "to the areas of public function within the Resort." 542. F.3d at 377. Finally, as to the pool area, the Second Circuit held that it could not hold, as a matter of law, that such areas were altered after 1992. Thus, the issue of alteration of the pool area is a matter to be determined at the upcoming trial. In the event that such areas were, in fact, altered, the Resort would have been required to make path of travel to the pool areas wheelchair accessible. Id. In the event that no such alteration occurred, the issue will be whether the removal of architectural barriers to pool entry is readily achievable. The Second Circuit noted the relative burdens to apply with respect to the pool access issue, and held that Plaintiffs satisfied their burden of production by proffering their plans and those of the independent architect that permitted cost-effective wheelchair access to at least one pool area. If there was no post-1992 alteration to the pool area, it will be up to theDefendants to prove that the Plaintiffs' proposal is not readily achievable. If that area was altered after 1992, the more stringent burdens set forth above will apply to the pool area as well.
B. Joinder of Necessary Parties
After remand, this court entertained a motion made by Defendants for summary judgment to dismiss the matter for failure to join necessary parties pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That motion was prompted by the court's concern whether,...
To continue reading
Request your trial