The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Alice Camarillo commenced this action against Carrols Corporation alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)*fn1 and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL).*fn2 (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 32.) Pending is Carrols's motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 86.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Carrols is a Delaware corporation with its primary place of business in New York. (See Def. SMF ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 86:5.) Carrols owns and operates two Burger King restaurants located on Route 9W in Hudson, New York, and Route 9 in Catskill, New York. (See id.) Camarillo is legally blind. (See Pl. SMF ¶ 5, Dkt. No. 90.) Her left eye was surgically removed, and she has almost no vision in her remaining eye. (See id.) Camarillo can read documents with normal-size print by using a prescription handheld magnifier and holding the document approximately an inch from her eye. (See Def. SMF ¶ 7, Dkt. No. 86:5.) Camarillo has visited Carrols's Catskill and Hudson stores more than ninety times since August 2002. (See id. at ¶ 17.) Camarillo does not recall the dates of any of her visits to these stores but estimates that she visited the Catskill store about once a month between August 2002 and the date of her deposition on March 25, 2009, and that she visited the Hudson store every three or four months during the same time period.*fn3 (See id. at ¶ 18.)
Carrols maintains written policies on the subject of serving guests with disabilities. (See id. at ¶ 29.) Its policy regarding serving visually-impaired guests specifies that those guests will not be asked to wait to place their order until other guests are served first. (See id. at ¶ 31.)
On August 4, 2005, Camarillo filed her original complaint in New York State Supreme Court, Greene County. (See Dkt. No. 1.) On October 27, 2005, the case was timely removed to this court. (See id.) Thereafter, motions to dismiss the complaint were filed by various defendants. (See Dkt. Nos. 6, 8,9, & 12.) Subsequently, the court granted Camarillo an additional thirty days to amend her complaint. (See Dkt. No. 29.) On April 3, 2006, Camarillo filed her amended complaint. (See Dkt. No. 32.) On September 26, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss. (See Dkt. No. 56.) On October 20, Camarillo filed her Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit. (See Dkt. No. 58.)
On February 8, 2008, the Second Circuit issued an opinion reversing and remanding this court's previous decision. See also Camarillo v. Carrols Corp., 518 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2008). On July 1, 2009, with discovery complete, Carrols filed a motion for summary judgment.
The standard for the grant of summary judgment is well established and will not be repeated here. For a full discussion of the standard, the court refers the parties to its previous opinion in Bain v. Town of Argyle, 499 F. Supp.2d 192, 194-95 (N.D.N.Y. 2007).
In support of its motion for summary judgment, ...