John Rose has the right to enter his Co-op City home through the building’s front door, a Bronx Supreme Court judge has ruled, requiring the building’s management company to make renovations. However, the damages awarded to the tenant were far lower than what the New York City Human Rights Commission said he deserved.
Rose, who has cerebral palsy, had asked River Bay Corp. to make the front door accessible in 2008. The company said it would make the side door accessible instead and Rose said that made him feel like a “second-class citizen.”
Rose has lived in the building for 30 years. As his condition progressed, weakening his arm and leg muscles, he would sit outside the door waiting for someone to open it. When the company renovated the side door for him to use two years after his request for front door accessibility, Rose refused to use it.
“I’m not going to give up my fight,” he said.
The Human Rights Commission ruled that Co-op City discriminated against Rose and violated the New York City Administrative Code, calling for $51,000 in compensatory damages and a $50,000 fine. Supreme Court Justice Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes has now lowered the award to $15,000 and the fine to $5,000.
“I didn’t do it for the money. What they give me is secondary,” said Rose. “I want to go through the front door like everybody else. I won’t go in the side door because the side door is not the standard. It’s dangerous to go in the side door. There’s no camera.”
Co-op City is one of the largest housing developments in the world, with more than 15,000 apartments and 35 buildings. Rose suggested that the cost of renovating the front door would not overwhelm its budget.
“I hope they don’t appeal it again. The money that they’re spending for the lawsuit they can use to do the door,” he said.
Co-op City referred questions to attorney Jeffrey Buss of Smith, Buss & Jacobs, who represented River Bay Corp. in the case. Buss did not return requests for comment.
James Weisman, senior vice president and general counsel for the United Spinal Association, who worked with Rose on the case, said the ruling was significant because it requires the company to make the front door accessible even though another door is already accessible. This breaks new ground in New York City human rights law, he said.
“If the tenants can use any door than so should John, if it’s reasonable,” Weisman said.
Weisman said there was “no apparent reason” that the company altered the side door instead of the front door and took years to make changes following Rose’s request. “We couldn’t figure out why they didn’t do the front door, so we continued with the case,” Weisman said.
However, Weisman criticized the lowering of Rose’s financial award.
“People with disabilities should be able to collect damages the way other people are able to collect damages,” Weisman said. “I feel strongly that if it was another protected class, the damages would not have been reduced.”
This article was published in the November 2011 issue of Able News.
Comments