A legal complaint has been filed seeking to address alleged barriers faced by individuals with disabilities at a business establishment in New York City. The lawsuit claims that the lack of accessibility prevents equal participation in public life for people who use wheelchairs or have mobility impairments. According to the filing, these conditions persist despite longstanding federal, state, and local laws designed to ensure equal access.
The complaint was filed by Kai Hunte on March 6, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Air Mail 546 Hudson Street LLC and 546 Hudson Street Partners LLC. Hunte is represented by Gabriel A. Levy, P.C.
According to the document, Hunte alleges that the defendants own or operate a place of public accommodation located at 307 Spring Street in New York City. The plaintiff claims that numerous architectural barriers exist at this location which restrict and prevent access for individuals with disabilities. Specifically, Hunte describes encountering a substantial step at the primary entrance during a visit on January 15, 2026: “There was no ramp, lift, or other accessible means of entry, and no method by which Plaintiff could contact staff inside the establishment to request assistance.” As a result of these conditions, Hunte reports feeling “embarrassed, excluded, and discriminated against.”
The complaint outlines several legal bases for relief. It asserts violations under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as under New York State Executive Law § 296; New York State Civil Rights Law § 40; and New York City Administrative Code § 8-107. The filing notes that both property owners and tenants operating places of public accommodation share responsibility for ensuring compliance with accessibility requirements: “The ADA imposes joint and several liability upon both the owner of a property and the entity leasing or operating the public accommodation.”
Hunte’s filing provides background information about his condition—a T4 spinal cord injury resulting from a motorcycle accident in 2010—which necessitates full-time use of a manual wheelchair. Despite this limitation, he states he is able to travel independently throughout New York City using an adapted vehicle.
The complaint further alleges that alterations were made to the premises after key dates outlined in accessibility regulations but failed to bring them into compliance with either the 1991 or 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The document cites multiple sections from federal regulations requiring accessible routes and entrances where there are changes in elevation greater than one-half inch: “Any change in level greater than one-half inch must comply with Section 303… it must be ramped and comply with Sections 405 or 406 governing ramps and curb ramps.”
In addition to federal law claims, Hunte alleges violations under state statutes by asserting that defendants have denied him equal access due to his disability—causing emotional distress such as humiliation and anxiety—and failed to make readily achievable accommodations as required by law.
The complaint also invokes provisions from the New York City Human Rights Law as amended by Local Law 85 (the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005), emphasizing its broad remedial purpose: “The Restoration Act expressly rejected strict parallelism with federal and state statutes…” It accuses defendants of willful conduct undertaken “with reckless disregard” for his rights under city code.
Hunte seeks several forms of relief from the court:
– Declaratory judgment stating that defendants violated applicable disability laws;
– A permanent injunction ordering closure until all violations are remedied or requiring submission of a compliance plan;
– Compensatory damages for emotional distress;
– Punitive damages under city law;
– Disgorgement of unlawful profits gained while allegedly operating out of compliance;
– Reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, expenses;
– And any other relief deemed just by the court.
The plaintiff requests retention of jurisdiction until all unlawful practices have been corrected. Attorney Gabriel A. Levy represents Kai Hunte in this matter. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-1856.
Source: 126cv01856_Kai_Hunte_v_Air_Mail_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
