These are decisions and verdicts from courts in New York in cases handled by Michael Samuel. Each one is a public court record, identified by court, judge, index or docket number and date, so it can be checked. They are listed by practice area.
ADA Website Accessibility Defense
Three written dismissals in the last eighteen months, two in New York Supreme Court and one in federal court, each on a motion made before any money was discussed.
Alexandria v. Just Shades, Inc.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Index No. 166307/2025. Hon. Judy H. Kim. Decision and order dated July 11, 2026.
The plaintiff, who by the defendant’s count had filed 54 largely identical website accessibility lawsuits in the New York state and federal courts since 2023, sued a Manhattan lamp shade retailer under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law and the Civil Rights Law. On the defendant’s motion, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety and refused leave to amend. The court held that the plaintiff had never asked the business for an accommodation, that a notice sent to the New York Attorney General is not a request to the defendant, that website design flaws are not a “policy or practice” for a disparate impact claim, and that nothing in the complaint supported an inference of discriminatory intent. In reaching that conclusion the court relied on Sumlin v. Batch, the decision below, which this firm also won.
Sumlin v. Royal Batch
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, Index No. 161493/2025. Hon. Phaedra F. Perry-Bond. Decision and order dated June 15, 2026.
The plaintiff alleged he could not buy vodka from the defendant’s website with a screen reader and sued under the State and City Human Rights Laws and the Civil Rights Law. The court took judicial notice that he had filed 36 nearly identical website accessibility lawsuits in state and federal court in eighteen months, adopted the Second Circuit’s reasoning in Calcano v. Swarovski North America, and found the standing allegations to be “bare legal conclusions or inherently incredible.” It dismissed the failure to accommodate claim because no accommodation was ever requested, the disparate treatment claim because no facts suggested discriminatory motive, and the disparate impact claim because a website cannot be both the place of public accommodation and the policy that harms the plaintiff. The complaint was dismissed and leave to amend was denied. The decision has since been cited by another Justice of the same court.
Martin v. Brooklyn Bagel & Coffee Company, Ltd.
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, No. 24-cv-3758. Hon. Allyne R. Ross. Case closed March 2025.
A proposed class action under Title III of the ADA and the New York Human Rights Laws over the accessibility of a bagel company’s website. After the original complaint was dismissed, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The court dismissed that as well, for lack of standing, finding that the allegation of an intent to return to the business was “self-evidently false”: the plaintiff pleaded that he lives in Brooklyn, and the company has no Brooklyn locations. The court applied Calcano and held that a plaintiff must plead specific reasons, beyond geographic proximity, for intending to return to a particular website or location.
What These Decisions Have in Common
In each case the complaint was a template, the plaintiff was a serial filer, and the defense was built on the complaint’s own words: no accommodation was ever requested, no facts suggested the business intended to discriminate, and the claimed intent to return could not survive a careful reading. None of that happens if the deadline passes. It happens when the motion is made on time, by counsel who reads these complaints every day.
Personal Injury
A jury verdict and two settlements on the eve of or during trial.
Holmes v. City of New York
Supreme Court of the State of New York. Jury verdict for the plaintiff, $908,000.
The plaintiff, a 48 year old school teacher, was injured when he slipped and fell on a puddle of milk while teaching soccer in a schoolyard. Michael Samuel tried the case to a jury verdict of $908,000 for his client.
Villegas v. Penske Truck
Settled before jury selection for $475,000.
The plaintiff, a 21 year old woman, was injured while driving her car on a major thoroughfare. The case resolved on the eve of trial.
Fowler v. Green Bus Lines
Settled after jury selection for $242,500.
The plaintiff, a wheelchair user with a prosthetic leg, was injured while riding a Green Lines bus. The case resolved after the jury had been picked.
Served with an ADA website lawsuit? Call Michael Samuel directly at 212-563-9884, or read about the firms that file most of these cases: Mizrahi Kroub, Gottlieb & Associates, Joseph & Norinsberg and Shaked Law Group.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends on its own facts. The decisions described above are public court records; nothing on this page is legal advice about your case.
