A lawsuit claims that a local restaurant operator and property owner have failed to provide accessible facilities for people with disabilities, resulting in repeated denial of equal access to public accommodations. The complaint was filed by James Futrell in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 4, 2026, naming BTM Development Partners, LLC and Doherty Apple Bronx Terminal Market, LLC as defendants.
According to the filing, Futrell alleges that both companies are responsible for ongoing disability discrimination at the Applebee’s restaurant located at 610 Exterior Street in Bronx County. The suit asserts violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). Futrell seeks declaratory relief, injunctive orders requiring accessibility improvements, compensatory and punitive damages, statutory penalties, attorney’s fees, costs, and other remedies.
The complaint outlines that BTM Development Partners owns Bronx Terminal Market—a shopping mall housing various stores—and leases space to Doherty Apple Bronx Terminal Market, which operates a casual dining restaurant under the Applebee’s brand. Futrell states he is a resident of New York City who uses a wheelchair due to medical conditions limiting his mobility. He alleges that during multiple visits within three years prior to filing suit—including one in April 2024—he encountered numerous architectural barriers inside the Applebee’s premises that prevented him from dining or receiving services comparable to non-disabled patrons.
Futrell describes several specific issues: lack of accessible dining surfaces; tables with obstructed knee and toe clearance; no accessible seating at bar counters; bar counters exceeding maximum height requirements; failure to disperse accessible tables throughout the facility; lack of International Symbol of Accessibility signage; and insufficiently wide routes for wheelchair users. He claims these conditions violate both federal ADA standards from 1991 and 2010 as well as various provisions in state and city building codes.
The complaint recounts an incident where Futrell was told by staff he would have to wait for seating despite available tables because his wheelchair was deemed a fire hazard—a policy not applied to patrons with strollers or baby carriages. Even after offering to transfer out of his wheelchair or speaking with management, he was denied accommodation. “Plaintiff felt humiliated as he observed non-disabled customers being seated immediately while he was forced to wait,” according to the document. He ultimately left without dining due to anger and humiliation.
Futrell argues that these experiences deter him from returning but states he would like to patronize the restaurant again if it becomes fully accessible. The lawsuit asserts that both defendants are jointly liable under ADA regulations because neither can delegate responsibility for accessibility through lease agreements.
In addition to federal law claims, Futrell invokes state statutes enacted or amended in recent years intended to broaden protections beyond those provided by federal law. The complaint references legislative intent behind amendments such as New York State Executive Law § 300 and New York City Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 (Local Law 85), which require liberal construction favoring individuals seeking relief from discrimination.
Futrell seeks several forms of relief: a declaratory judgment finding defendants in violation of applicable laws; a permanent injunction ordering closure until all accessibility violations are remedied; compensatory damages for emotional distress including humiliation and anxiety; punitive damages under city law; statutory penalties under Civil Rights Law §§ 40-c and 40-d for each violation; attorney’s fees; costs; expenses; and any further relief deemed just by the court.
The case is being handled by Robert G. Hanski of Hanski Partners LLC on behalf of James Futrell. The case number is 1:26-cv-01786.
Source: 126cv01786_James_Futrell_v_BTM_Development_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
