Naiman v. New York University
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
1997 WL 249970 (1997)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
Alec Naiman (plaintiff), a deaf man, was an emergency-room patient at New York University Medical Center (NYUMC) twice in 1993 and twice in 1995. During each visit, Naiman requested a sign-language interpreter. On Naiman’s first and third visits, NYUMC failed to provide a sign-language interpreter. On Naiman’s second visit, after Naiman had been at NYUMC for most of the day, NYUMC provided a person with minimal sign-language ability who was largely unable to understand Naiman. Finally, on Naiman’s fourth visit, NYUMC failed to present a sign-language interpreter in a timely manner. Naiman sued the operator of NYUMC, New York University (NYU) (defendant), in federal district court. Naiman asserted that NYUMC’s failure to provide a qualified sign-language interpreter denied Naiman the ability to meaningfully participate in his own medical care. Naiman sought injunctive and monetary relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act (RA), and state law. NYU moved to dismiss Naiman’s complaint, arguing in relevant part that Naiman did not have legal standing to seek injunctive relief because Naiman had failed to prove that there was a real or immediate threat that Naiman would be wronged again. The district court considered NYU’s motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McKenna, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.