ADA Web Compliance in New York

New York is the highest-volume jurisdiction in the country for federal ADA web litigation. The Southern District of New York and the Eastern District of New York together account for somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of all federal ADA web case filings nationwide in any given recent year, and the trend has held for nearly a decade. The reasons are structural: the Second Circuit's settled position that websites are "places of public accommodation" under Title III, the high concentration of consumer-facing businesses targeting New York City traffic, an active and well-funded plaintiffs' bar, and overlapping state and city civil rights statutes (NYS Human Rights Law and NYC Human Rights Law) that extend coverage and increase the value of cases filed in New York courts. This guide covers how the state and city laws stack with the federal ADA, how SDNY and EDNY procedure shapes case timelines, which plaintiffs and firms drive the volume, and which industries are taking the heaviest fire.

This page is informational and is not legal advice. ADA, federal regulations, and state-law obligations vary by jurisdiction and business type — consult qualified counsel for case-specific guidance.

The Second Circuit on websites as public accommodations

The Second Circuit has not issued a single landmark Title III website ruling on the order of Robles in the Ninth Circuit, but the lower courts in SDNY and EDNY have developed a remarkably consistent body of decisions holding that websites with a sufficient nexus to a physical place of public accommodation, and in many cases websites with no physical nexus at all, are covered by Title III.

The most-cited New York case is Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 381 (E.D.N.Y. 2017), in which Judge Weinstein held that Blick's art-supply website was a place of public accommodation under Title III even though Blick had a physical store, and rejected arguments that the ADA did not extend to websites. The opinion is dense and well-reasoned, and has been cited extensively in subsequent decisions inside and outside the circuit.

Marett v. Five Guys Enterprises, LLC, 17-cv-788 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), addressed restaurant website accessibility specifically, and held that an inaccessible ordering site was actionable. Del-Orden v. Bonobos, Inc., 17-cv-2744 (S.D.N.Y. 2017), addressed online- only retailers and held that a website can be a place of public accommodation in its own right, without requiring a physical-store nexus. Markett v. Five Guys,Mendez v. Apple Inc., and a long line of other SDNY cases have followed the same logic.

How NYS HRL and NYC HRL stack with federal ADA

The federal ADA does not authorize money damages for private plaintiffs in Title III cases — only injunctive relief and attorney's fees. New York adds two layers of state and city law that change that calculus.

New York State Human Rights Law, Exec. Law § 296, prohibits disability discrimination in places of public accommodation. Unlike the federal ADA, NYS HRL authorizes compensatory damages, including damages for mental anguish and emotional distress, plus punitive damages in cases of willful or wanton conduct. The 2019 amendments to NYS HRL extended coverage and made the standard more plaintiff-friendly by aligning more closely with the NYC HRL.

New York City Human Rights Law, NYC Admin. Code § 8-107, is one of the broadest civil rights statutes in the country. It applies to any business that sells to or operates in New York City, authorizes compensatory and punitive damages without statutory caps, and is to be construed liberally in favor of plaintiffs under Albunio v. City of New York, 16 N.Y.3d 472 (2011) and the NYC HRL Restoration Act. Most NY-filed ADA web cases plead all three statutes (federal ADA, NYS HRL, NYC HRL) in tandem to maximize recovery options.

SDNY and EDNY: case management and timelines

Southern District of New York. SDNY is the highest-volume ADA web court in the country. Individual judges handle case loads of dozens of identical or near-identical complaints from a handful of plaintiff firms. SDNY's Local Civil Rule 83.10 mediation program is frequently used for ADA web cases, and many cases settle within 60-90 days of filing through the court's mediation panel without any substantive litigation. Several SDNY judges (including former Magistrate Judge Lehrburger and Judge Engelmayer) have written widely cited opinions on Title III standards.

Eastern District of New York. EDNY (which covers Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island, and Staten Island) has historically been even more permissive on ADA web standing and damages than SDNY, and is the second-highest- volume ADA web court in the country. Judges in EDNY have tended to push back on aggregated case patterns less than their SDNY counterparts. Brooklyn-based plaintiff firms particularly favor EDNY for filing.

Northern District and Western District of New York. Lower volume but increasing, particularly for cases filed against businesses headquartered in upstate New York or with operations primarily outside NYC.

Tester standing and the serial filer pattern

New York ADA web litigation is dominated by a comparatively small number of named plaintiffs who file many cases each year. The legal foundation for this is the Second Circuit's permissive view on "tester" standing — the rule that a plaintiff who visits a website specifically to evaluate its accessibility, even without a separate intent to transact, has Article III standing to sue.

The Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, 601 U.S. 1 (2023), declined to reach the merits of tester standing because the case became moot. The lower courts have largely continued to recognize tester standing in ADA web cases, including in the Second Circuit. Calcano v. Swarovski North America Ltd., 36 F.4th 68 (2d Cir. 2022), tightened standing requirements somewhat by requiring more specific allegations of intent to return, but did not eliminate tester standing as a category.

Practical impact: serial-filer cases continue to be viable in NY. Defense motions to dismiss for lack of standing succeed only in cases with particularly thin allegations. Most cases settle.

High-volume plaintiff firms in New York

The highest-volume ADA web plaintiff firms operating in New York courts include:

• Mizrahi Kroub LLP, New York. One of the highest-volume filers nationally.
• Stein Saks PLLC, Hackensack NJ but extremely active in SDNY/EDNY. Files hundreds of cases per year.
• The Marks Law Firm, P.C., Long Island. Active in EDNY.
• Gottlieb & Associates PLLC, New York. Long-standing accessibility practice.
• Cohen & Mizrahi LLP, New York. High volume on retail and ecommerce.
• Shaked Law Group, P.C., Brooklyn. Active in EDNY.

Several of these firms collectively represent only a few dozen named plaintiffs across thousands of filings, reflecting the dominant serial-filer pattern in NY litigation.

Industries hit hardest in New York

Retail and ecommerce. By far the largest category. Both NYC-headquartered fashion houses and out- of-state retailers selling into NY are routinely sued. Apparel, beauty, jewelry, and home goods retailers are particularly heavily targeted. The pattern often follows seasonal commerce — filings spike around Black Friday and holiday shopping seasons.

Hospitality. NYC hotels (especially Manhattan and Brooklyn boutique properties) have been hit consistently under the DOJ's 2010 reservation rule requiring accessible-room information online. Restaurants and bars in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens face high volume.

Financial services. NY-based banks, wealth managers, and fintech companies face exposure both for consumer-facing sites and for client portals. Several large bank settlements have involved both web and mobile app accessibility.

Professional services. Law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms, and medical practices in NYC face increasing volume, particularly under the NYC Human Rights Law's broad coverage.

New York ADA filing volume by industry

Class action vs individual suit patterns

Most NY ADA web cases are filed as individual actions, not class actions. The reason is procedural: class certification under Federal Rule 23 requires showing commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, which is difficult when the plaintiff's actual interaction with the site is highly individualized. Plaintiff firms can capture more settlement value across a larger volume of individual cases than they could through a single contested class certification motion.

That said, class action filings do occur in NY, particularly against large defendants where common questions of fact and law dominate. National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006), the first major web accessibility class action, has been the model. NY plaintiffs have filed similar class actions against large retailers, financial services firms, and educational institutions.

What to do today

If your business operates in or sells into New York, assume you are within scope of all three statutes (ADA, NYS HRL, NYC HRL). Run a WCAG 2.1 AA scan this week on your homepage, your most-trafficked product or service page, your contact or scheduling page, and any checkout or payment flow. If your business serves NYC residents specifically, the NYC HRL is the most permissive of the three statutes and the easiest for a plaintiff to plead. Document your audits, fix the violations, and maintain a written accessibility statement on your site that references WCAG 2.1 AA as your conformance target. Those steps do not eliminate exposure but they substantially improve negotiating posture if a demand letter arrives.