S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-08631
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prince Street Associates Incsource ↗ filed by Hanski Partners LLC · No. 1:26-cv-08631 · 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $65K–$530K ▾Lowell v. Lyft shows courts require plaintiffs to prove proposed accommodations are effective, a high bar that can doom ADA claims early; Burton shows equitable/injunctive ADA-adjacent claims often survive mootness challenges but fee awards get scrutinized. Mixed outcomes (Billesdon reversed failure-to-accommodate) suggest fact-intensive, unpredictable rulings. Comparable settlements $65K–$530K median $200K · n=3 Covenant Retiremen $530K · Association of Apa $200K · Home Depot U.S.A., $65K Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) — affirms plaintiff bears burden to show reasonableness/effectiveness of requested modification, directly relevant to physical-access ADA claims. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to show proposed modification/accommodation is effective, as in Lowell v. Lyft. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $20K–$500K Small sample, no prior records on defendant, and ADA Title III typically caps recovery to fees/injunctive relief rather than per-member damages, limiting precision. · grounded in 8 rulings, 3 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-09-30 | $65K–$530K comparable settlements |