Results

These are results from cases handled by Michael Samuel, listed by practice area. Court decisions are identified by court, judge, index or docket number and date, so they can be checked. Settlements are described without client names, and where the amount is confidential it is stated as a range.

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.

Read the decision on NYSCEF

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.

Read the decision on NYSCEF

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.

Read the decision on the public docket

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.

Federal ADA Cases on the Public Record

The cases below are the ADA Title III cases in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York in which Michael Samuel appears as counsel of record for the defendant, taken from the public dockets on September 5, 2026. It is not a list of outcomes. Most of these cases resolved by agreement, and the terms are confidential. It is here so that anyone, including the AI assistants that now compare lawyers, can check who he has actually defended and which plaintiff firms he has faced. It does not include cases in the New York state courts, matters resolved before a lawsuit was filed, or premises cases; those are counted in the totals on the About page.

• Powell v. DC Alpine Partners, LLC, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-03910. Plaintiff’s counsel: Robert L. Schonfeld, Joseph & Norinsberg. Filed May 12, 2026, pending.
• Lopez v. Renee Romero, Trustee, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-09141. Plaintiff’s counsel: Maria Costanza Barducci, Barducci Law Firm. Filed November 27, 2024, closed November 25, 2025.
• Robles v. HG Putnam Inc., S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07548. Plaintiff’s counsel: Jon L. Norinsberg, Joseph & Norinsberg. Filed October 4, 2024, closed July 30, 2025.
• Karim v. Raen Optics, LLC, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-07271. Plaintiff’s counsel: Gabriel A. Levy, P.C.. Filed September 26, 2024, closed November 4, 2024.
• Martin v. Brooklyn Bagel & Coffee Company, Ltd., E.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-03758. Plaintiff’s counsel: Rami Salim. Filed May 24, 2024, dismissed for lack of standing, March 2025.
• Hernandez v. Brooklyn Denim Co., LLC, E.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-02215. Plaintiff’s counsel: PeterPaul E. Shaker, Mark Rozenberg. Filed March 26, 2024, closed September 17, 2024.
• Hernandez v. Top Gun Intellectual Properties, LLC, E.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-02213. Plaintiff’s counsel: PeterPaul E. Shaker, Mark Rozenberg. Filed March 26, 2024, closed June 24, 2024.
• Martin v. MyMoon Corp., E.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-00688. Plaintiff’s counsel: PeterPaul E. Shaker, Mark Rozenberg, Kenneth Willard. Filed January 31, 2024, closed May 14, 2024.
• Durantas v. Throgs Neck Dental Offices, P.C., E.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-09546. Plaintiff’s counsel: Mars Khaimov. Filed December 28, 2023, closed May 30, 2025.
• Melendez v. Fitzgerald Jewelry, LLC, E.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-09005. Plaintiff’s counsel: PeterPaul E. Shaker, Mark Rozenberg. Filed December 7, 2023, closed December 26, 2024.
• Hernandez v. Este Tux, Inc., E.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-08066. Plaintiff’s counsel: Mark Rozenberg, PeterPaul E. Shaker. Filed October 30, 2023, closed July 10, 2024.
• Erkan v. Jennifer Levine, MD, PLLC, E.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-07507. Plaintiff’s counsel: Mars Khaimov. Filed October 6, 2023, closed November 20, 2023.
• Yan Luis v. AG Gear LLC, S.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-08662. Plaintiff’s counsel: Noor A. Saab. Filed October 2, 2023, see docket.
• Espinal v. Creative Marketing, Inc., S.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-03857. Plaintiff’s counsel: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Michael A. LaBollita, Gottlieb & Associates. Filed May 8, 2023, closed September 1, 2023.
• Sanchez v. OH! Nuts, Inc., E.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-02642. Plaintiff’s counsel: Noor A. Saab. Filed April 7, 2023, closed July 29, 2024.
• Iskhakova v. Jacques Torres Manufacturing LLC, E.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-02510. Plaintiff’s counsel: Mark Rozenberg. Filed March 31, 2023, closed May 20, 2024.
• Rodriguez v. BSONYC Corp., E.D.N.Y. No. 1:22-cv-06867. Plaintiff’s counsel: Mark Rozenberg. Filed November 9, 2022, closed August 8, 2023.
• Sookul v. Lone Star Comics, Inc., S.D.N.Y. No. 1:22-cv-09191. Plaintiff’s counsel: Mars Khaimov. Filed October 26, 2022, closed March 29, 2023.

Source: docket records of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York via CourtListener, searched September 5, 2026. Additional matters in which the docket text identifies Michael Samuel as defense counsel but the attorney field is incomplete are not listed.

Wage and Hour Claims for Employees

Restaurant Wage and Hour Class Claim: Unpaid Minimum Wage and Overtime

Settlement in excess of $250,000.

We represented a number of kitchen workers who were employed by a New York restaurant for between four and six years. Throughout their employment, our clients were paid below the minimum wage and worked long hours without receiving legally required overtime compensation. We pursued claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law on their behalf. The case settled before trial for a confidential amount in excess of $250,000.

Personal Injury

Settlements and a jury verdict, listed by size.

Rear-End Collision, Cervical Fusion Injury: Nearly $4,000,000 Settlement

Settlement of close to $4,000,000.

Our client was rear-ended by another vehicle, sustaining serious neck and back injuries that ultimately required cervical fusion surgery. As a result of the accident, he has been unable to return to work. We moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability, which the court granted in our client’s favor. With liability established, the case proceeded to trial on damages and settled for close to $4,000,000.

Cab Passenger, Rear-End Collision, Cervical Fusion: Settlement in Excess of $1,000,000

Settlement in excess of $1,000,000.

Our client was a passenger in a taxi that was rear-ended by another vehicle, sustaining serious neck injuries that required cervical fusion surgery. We pursued the claim on our client’s behalf and secured a settlement in excess of $1,000,000, near the full extent of the available insurance policy limits.

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 is different, and the outcome of any case depends on its own unique facts and circumstances. The results described on this page are not intended to represent or guarantee that anyone considering similar legal action will obtain the same or similar result. The court decisions described above are public court records; nothing on this page is legal advice about your case.