Galonsky v. East 17th LLC

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 15, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Plaintiff Denise Galonsky moves for summary judgment on her only cause of action, for disability discrimination. Defendants cross-move for partial dismissal and/or summary judgment on plaintiff’s cause of action asserted against defendants The Scharfman Organization (Scharfman Org) and Mark Scharfman (Scharfman). For the reasons stated below, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion and defendants’ cross-motion. Background. According to the complaint, defendants are the owners and managers of the building located at 135 East 17th Street in Manhattan (135 East 17th Street) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 34). Scharfman Org is allegedly the holding company of two of the defendants, East 17th LLC and Beach Lane Management Inc. (Beach Lane) (id., 10). Scharfman is the head officer of East 17th LLC and, as such, purportedly controls the building (id., 9). Plaintiff has resided in apartment 5F in 135 East 17th Street for over 30 years. The building has an elevator, but there are three steps that lead down to the building’s entrance. Plaintiff asserts that she suffers from multiple disabilities that have greatly worsened over the years. Among other things, plaintiff contends that she has severe osteoarthritis and internal derangement in both knees, degenerative disc disease, neuritis with paresthesia in her left forearm and hand, reduced lung capacity, and reduced ambulatory status. Plaintiff alleges that she fell in July 2018, and that this ultimately caused deep venous thrombosis and a pulmonary embolism. In March 2019, plaintiff allegedly fell again, and this exacerbated her earlier injuries. The use of stairs allegedly increases plaintiff’s pain and impedes the repair of any damaged tissue or muscle, and she will have to use a wheelchair or a scooter for the rest of her life. Presently, plaintiff is required to dismount her scooter to ascend or descend stairs. Plaintiff contends that the absence of a ramp makes the building inaccessible, thereby impeding her freedom and independence (NYSCEF Doc. No. 34,