Accessibility laws · New York, US

New York Human Rights Laws (NYSHRL & NYCHRL)

New York produced 1,021 federal website accessibility lawsuits in 2025, more than any other state, and the reason is money. The ADA can order you to fix the site and make you pay the other side's lawyer. New York's state and city human rights laws add damages on top of that. The city law is also written to be read more generously toward the person suing than either the federal or the state version. That is why a plaintiff's firm with a choice of venue picks New York. What actually happens in most of those cases is an early settlement for modest money and a promise to fix the site, not the six-figure penalties the statutes allow.

NY federal suits, 2025: 1,021
Max NYC civil penalty: $125k
If willful (NYC): $250k
WCAG cited in practice: 2.1 AA

What the law is

New York has two anti-discrimination laws that reach an inaccessible website, and they stack rather than replace each other. The New York State Human Rights Law, the NYSHRL, covers the whole state. The New York City Human Rights Law, the NYCHRL, covers the five boroughs. Both treat an inaccessible digital service the way they would treat a store with a step at the door, as discrimination in a public accommodation. It is worth knowing where that breadth comes from, because it is not from the words. The state law's definition of a public accommodation is a list of physical places, inns, taverns, hotels, restaurants, stores, clinics and the like, and the word website appears nowhere in it. Courts got there by construction instead, helped by a statutory instruction to read the law liberally for its remedial purposes.

Unlike California's Unruh Act, neither of these needs an ADA violation to work. Section 297(9) of the state law gives an aggrieved person a cause of action in court in its own right, and the city law does the same. In practice they arrive stapled to a federal complaint, because there is no reason for a plaintiff's lawyer to leave remedies on the table, but a New York claim can stand on its own. The ADA stops at ordering a fix and awarding attorney's fees. New York adds compensatory damages, punitive damages under the city law, and civil penalties paid to the government on top of anything the plaintiff recovers. That punitive damages detail is the one most competing pages get wrong. The state statute authorizes punitive damages in employment cases against private employers and in housing cases, and the $10,000 cap you will see quoted belongs only to an order the Division of Human Rights makes itself. Public accommodations are on neither list. So in a website case, the punitive damages come from the city law. Fees under the state law are discretionary, awarded to a prevailing or substantially prevailing party if the commissioner or the court decides to award them.

There is a live question underneath every New York case right now, and it decides some of them outright. Can a website with no physical place behind it be a place of public accommodation under ADA Title III at all? Federal judges in the Southern District of New York disagree, openly, and the split is deepening. On the restrictive side sit Winegard v. Newsday, Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Mejia v. High Brew Coffee, and most recently Fernandez v. Gainful Health, decided in December 2025, where the judge dismissed both the ADA claim and the city claim with prejudice on exactly that ground. Plenty of other judges in the same district have gone the other way. If you sell only online, that split is the most consequential thing on this page for you, and it is nowhere near settled enough to plan around.

This applies to you if…

Your website or app serves New York consumers, and your company does not need an office or a store in the state for a claim to land. Businesses based in Texas, California, and Florida have all faced New York claims over sites a New Yorker used.
You operate a place or provider of public accommodation as New York courts have read that phrase, which reaches retail, restaurants, services, digital platforms, and apps well past a literal storefront.
You already carry ADA exposure, in which case a New York claim usually arrives paired with the federal complaint. It does not have to. Both statutes give a claim of their own, so a New Yorker can sue you under them whatever happens to the federal count. Some complaints add a fourth count on top, under General Business Law section 349, the state's deceptive practices statute.

What it technically requires

Neither statute names a technical standard in its own text. WCAG is not formally written into the Americans with Disabilities Act, the NYSHRL, or the NYCHRL. It is the yardstick regardless, because complaints cite it, expert reports measure against it, and remediation promises in settlements get specified as WCAG conformance. WCAG 2.1 Level AA is the version that has become the working benchmark in New York litigation.
The city law has to be construed independently and liberally, for what the statute itself calls its uniquely broad and remedial purposes, regardless of how comparably worded federal or state provisions have been read. Federal and state civil rights law is a floor under the city law rather than a ceiling over it. Since the 2019 amendments the state law carries its own liberal construction rule too, so this is no longer a city-only feature. What it means for you is straightforward. A defense that wins under the federal ADA can still lose under the city law, which leaves an actually accessible website as the only defense that holds up across all three.
An overlay widget makes you a target rather than a defense. In 2024, more than a quarter of website accessibility suits were filed against sites that were already running one. A visible accessibility button sitting over a keyboard trap is one of the easiest complaints in this field to write.

All roads lead to WCAG. Start with Level AA, the legal standard or the full 55-rule library. Unfamiliar term along the way? The A to Z glossary decodes it.

How it is enforced

New York was the busiest venue in the country in 2025, with 1,021 federal website accessibility lawsuits filed there. Most of those pair an ADA claim with NYSHRL and NYCHRL counts in one complaint, which is how a plaintiff stacks three sources of remedy into a single case. Be careful with filing counts, though, because different trackers count different things. Seyfarth's federal-court dataset has national filings up 27 percent in 2025, with New York at 1,021. A consultancy quoted in the New York Law Journal in February 2026 put New York at over 28 percent of all ADA website accessibility claims that year. The same piece called New York's total down significantly from 2024. Both can be true if the second is counting demand letters and state filings as well. A number without its universe attached tells you very little.

So what actually happens in a typical case? It settles early, for nominal compensation and an agreement to make the website accessible. That is the median outcome the lawyers who defend these describe, and it sits a long way from the penalty ceilings further down this page. That is useful in both directions. The realistic cost of one of these is not six figures, and the realistic number of them is more than one if your site stays broken.

Standing has become a genuine defense in the Second Circuit, which is new. Since Calcano v. Swarovski in 2022 a plaintiff has to plead a concrete injury and a plausible intent to return, and in Rendon v. Extreme Networks in 2025 a court put it bluntly, saying it is not enough to plead the magic words that a plaintiff intends to return to the defendant's website. Courts have gone further than that. One 2025 Southern District case allowed jurisdictional discovery into a serial plaintiff, permitting a deposition and a forensic examination of the devices used to search for or reach the defendant's website. That is a real deterrent, and it is worth knowing it exists before assuming every filing has to be paid off.

Fixing the site after you are sued can end the case, and it can also fail to. It worked in Contreras v. TD Associates in the Southern District in 2025. It failed the same year in Martinez v. Pure Green NYC Wholesale, over in the Eastern District. There the court held the defendant had not met what it called the formidable burden of showing its remedial work had completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the violations. The lesson is not that remediation is pointless. It is that a partial fix with no evidence behind it buys you nothing, while a complete fix you can document might buy you the whole case.

The State Division of Human Rights and the NYC Commission on Human Rights can enforce these laws directly, separately from any private suit. Under state law a civil penalty runs up to $50,000, rising to up to $100,000 where the act is found willful, wanton, or malicious. The statute adds that the penalty is paid to the state, stated separately, and does not reduce or offset any other damages. The city commission works on the same scale but higher, up to $125,000, and up to $250,000 for a willful, wanton, or malicious act. Compensatory damages, punitive damages under the city law, and attorney's fees stack on top of whatever penalty applies. Now the honest part. We could not find a single website accessibility matter that either agency has resolved with a civil penalty. The power is real and the numbers are real. Read them as what the statute permits, not as what normally happens.

Key dates

OngoingNo compliance date: exposure exists whenever a New Yorker hits a barrier on your site

What to do about it

Every obligation on this page is measured against WCAG, so the first step is knowing where you actually stand. Run the free 10-page scan for the machine-checkable slice. For the rest, we review the key journeys with an expert and a real blind screen-reader user, then attach a screenshot and a fix to every finding. $499, 5 business days.

Order your audit Run the free scan

Primary sources

Other laws

Related on this site

What to read next, and the terms this page uses.

Orientation only, current as of August 2026. Not legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is created. For your specific situation, talk to your own lawyer.