S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-07497
Full docket on CourtListener ↗
No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).
| Matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taz Aroma 2 Incsource ↗ filed by The Weitz Law Firm, P.A. · No. 1:26-cv-07497 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾Lowell v. Lyft shows ADA/NYSHRL claims can be dismissed when plaintiff fails to prove proposed modifications are effective, while Holmes v. Bax shows ADA claims often survive summary judgment when barriers are well-documented. Small retail defendant with no prior ADA record cuts both ways on predictability. Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) - controls S.D.N.Y. ADA reasoning; plaintiff bears burden to show requested accommodation is effective, a frequent failure point for small-business ADA suits. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead/prove a plausible, effective accommodation, as in Lowell v. Lyft Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1K–$10K Single small business, no prior litigation history, and no settlement/verdict comparables specific to this theory limit precision; figures are rough anchors. · grounded in 7 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-09-02 | $1K–$10K rough EV |