Key Points

  • The Second Department reversed a Kings County order that had dismissed a wheelchair user's NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against a clothing store's owner and operator on collateral estoppel grounds.
  • A federal court's ruling that barrier removal was not 'readily achievable' under ADA Title III did not decide the issues raised by the state and city claims, which involve a different legal threshold and different factual issues.
  • Under the NYCHRL, a covered entity must establish that the requested accommodation would cause undue hardship, so NYCHRL claims must be analyzed independently of ADA claims.
  • The 2019 amendment requiring liberal construction of the NYSHRL regardless of how comparable federal laws are read applies to this action, so the federal ADA ruling did not resolve the NYSHRL claim.
  • A federal court's refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction does not by itself defeat collateral estoppel; the bar still applies where the federal court decided identical issues.

A New York appeals court on Wednesday revived a wheelchair user's state and city discrimination claims against a clothing store, holding that a federal judge's ruling against her under the Americans with Disabilities Act did not prevent her from pressing those claims in state court.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed an order of Supreme Court, Kings County, that had dismissed Kelly Irish's claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The unsigned decision was issued by a four-justice panel: Justices Lara J. Genovesi, Deborah A. Dowling, Lillian Wan and Susan Quirk. All four concurred, and the panel awarded costs to Irish.

The ruling turns on collateral estoppel, the doctrine that bars a party from relitigating an issue a court has already decided against it. The panel held that the federal court's finding that removing the store's barriers was not "readily achievable" under the ADA settled nothing about the state and city claims. Those claims, the court wrote, "involve a different legal threshold and different factual issues than those involved in determining whether the defendants discriminated against the plaintiff within the meaning of the ADA."

Irish, who uses a wheelchair, sued in June 2024. She named Tropical Emerald, LLC, which owns the clothing store, and Rainbow USA, Inc., which operates it. Her complaint alleged that she could not move between the merchandise display racks because they were too close together for a wheelchair, and that store employees refused to move the racks to make room for her.

The suit was her second against the companies. In 2019 she had sued them in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Title III of the ADA and under the state and city laws. In March 2024, the federal court granted the defendants summary judgment on the ADA claim. It then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims and dismissed them without prejudice.

In the state action, the defendants moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a), arguing that the federal ruling estopped her. Justice Steven Z. Mostofsky granted that part of the motion in an order dated March 20, 2025, and Irish appealed.

The panel began with the four-part test for collateral estoppel. The doctrine "only applies when: (1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits," the court wrote, quoting earlier Appellate Division decisions.

The court acknowledged that a federal judge's refusal to hear state claims does not by itself end the inquiry. Collateral estoppel "may still bar those claims provided that the federal court decided issues identical to those raised by the plaintiff's state law claims," the panel wrote. The dispute in Irish's case was whether the issues were identical.

On the city law, the panel held they were not. The NYCHRL, the court wrote, "must be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the uniquely broad and remedial purposes thereof," regardless of how similarly worded federal laws have been read. Under the city law, a covered business must show that the accommodation sought would cause "undue hardship" in the conduct of its business, the panel wrote. It concluded that "a cause of action asserted pursuant to the NYCHRL must be analyzed independently from similar or identical causes of action asserted pursuant to the ADA."

The state law presented a closer question, because the standards for proving discrimination in a place of public accommodation under the NYSHRL "previously were the same as those governing cases alleging violations of the ADA," the panel wrote. But the court pointed to a 2019 amendment in which the Legislature directed that the NYSHRL "be construed liberally for the accomplishment of the remedial purposes thereof, regardless of whether federal civil rights laws, including those laws with provisions worded comparably to the provisions of [the NYSHRL], have been so construed."

That amendment took effect on August 12, 2019, and the panel held that it applies to Irish's action, citing an earlier Appellate Division decision, Wright v. White Plains Hospital Medical Center. The court did not spell out what the amended state standard requires in an accessibility case. It held only that the federal finding did not resolve the state claim.

Having found no identity of issues under either law, the panel concluded that the trial court "should have denied those branches of the defendants' motion" seeking dismissal of the state and city claims. It said Irish's "remaining contention need not be reached in light of our determination." The decision does not describe what that contention was.

Lawyers for Irish included Glen H. Parker of The Parker Law Group P.C. Tropical Emerald and Rainbow were represented by A. Michael Weber of Littler Mendelson P.C.

The order reverses the dismissal insofar as Irish appealed from it and denies the defendants' motion on the state and city claims, which return to Supreme Court, Kings County. The decision, 2026 NY Slip Op 06423, is marked uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.