A lawsuit claims that a well-known comedy club is not accessible to people who use wheelchairs, raising questions about compliance with federal, state, and city disability rights laws. The complaint was filed by Namel Norris in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 8, 2026, naming Melda Comedy LLC (doing business as Greenwich Village Comedy Club) and 99 MacDougal LLC as defendants.
According to court documents, Norris is a resident of New York City who uses a wheelchair due to paraplegia. He alleges that when he visited the Greenwich Village Comedy Club at 99 MacDougal Street, he was denied full and equal access to its facilities because of architectural barriers. The complaint states that Norris “personally visited Defendants’ Property, but was denied full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the facilities at Defendants’ Property.” He further claims this denial constitutes discrimination under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL).
The legal filing outlines several specific allegations regarding accessibility at the comedy club. Among them are: failure to provide an accessible entrance due to multiple steps without an ADA-compliant ramp or lift; lack of a safe and accessible means of egress; inadequate directional signage; and absence of signage informing patrons with disabilities about available services. The complaint cites regulations such as 28 C.F.R. Part 36 Section 4.14 regarding entrances and Section 4.3.10 concerning egress.
Norris asserts that these conditions violate federal law because public accommodations like entertainment venues must be accessible to individuals with disabilities if it is readily achievable to remove barriers. The suit references congressional findings about ongoing discrimination faced by disabled Americans in areas including public accommodations, noting that Congress intended “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” According to Norris’s attorneys, “Defendants have discriminated, and continue to discriminate, against the Plaintiff…by denying full and equal access to…accommodations at Defendants’ Property.”
In addition to federal claims under the ADA, Norris invokes parallel protections under local statutes. The complaint quotes NYC Administrative Code §8-107(4)(a), which prohibits owners or operators from denying any person accommodations based on disability status. It also references NYS Executive Law §296(2)(a), which contains similar language regarding places of public accommodation in New York State.
The filing argues that defendants’ actions amount not only to unlawful discrimination but also willful disregard for longstanding legal requirements: “The Defendants’ long-standing refusal and/or lack of effort to make the Subject Facilities fully accessible was egregious and undertaken with reckless disregard to Plaintiff’s rights under the Administrative Code.” It further contends that such conduct signals disabled persons are “not welcome” as patrons.
Norris seeks both injunctive relief—meaning court orders requiring changes—and monetary damages. Specifically, he requests an order declaring that defendants’ property violates relevant disability rights laws; an order requiring alterations so facilities are fully accessible; evaluation and revision of policies affecting disabled patrons; compensatory damages totaling $1,500 for violations under city and state law; punitive damages pursuant to local code; attorney’s fees; costs including expert fees; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys B. Bradley Weitz (BW 9365) and Robert J. Mirel (RM 2974) from The Weitz Law Firm represent Norris in this case (Case No: 1:26-cv-01896). Judge names are not listed in this filing.
Source: 126cv01896_Namel_Norris_v_Melda_Comedy_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
