A New York resident who uses a wheelchair is seeking court intervention after being unable to access a local vape shop due to architectural barriers, raising questions about compliance with federal, state, and city disability access laws. The complaint was filed by Altaune Brown on March 27, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against IVAPE NY, CORP. and West Lake 127-129 Second Avenue LLC.
According to the filing, Brown alleges that he attempted to enter the defendants’ premises at 36 St. Marks Place on February 6, 2025, as well as on other occasions but was prevented from doing so by a step leading from the sidewalk to the entrance. The complaint states that this barrier made it impossible for him to access goods and services offered by the smoke shop. Brown claims that these conditions violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as provisions of the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL).
The document describes Brown as a paraplegic who relies on a wheelchair for mobility—a status recognized as a qualified disability under relevant statutes. He asserts that IVAPE NY, CORP., as operator of the retail business, and West Lake 127-129 Second Avenue LLC, as property owner or manager, are jointly responsible for ensuring accessibility under these laws. The complaint emphasizes that both entities are considered public accommodations because they provide goods and services to the public.
Brown’s filing details several specific alleged violations at the premises: lack of an accessible route from street level due to a step at the entrance; service counters exceeding allowable height limits; absence of accessible merchandise displays; inadequate signage; lack of safe emergency egress; and failure to maintain policies ensuring accessibility for disabled individuals. The complaint further notes that “Plaintiff was unable to enter Defendants’ Premises” because “the existing barriers prevent access and restrict the paths of travel.” It also states that “Plaintiff has tried returning…while out on errands; however, the barriers…remain,” resulting in continued denial of access.
The legal arguments presented rely heavily on statutory requirements mandating reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities in places open to the public. The ADA Accessibility Guidelines specify standards for entrances, counters, signage, emergency exits, and other features designed to facilitate independent use by disabled individuals. According to Brown’s counsel, “Defendants have discriminated…by denying full and equal access” in violation of these standards.
In addition to outlining alleged failures under federal law, Brown accuses both defendants of violating parallel protections under city and state human rights statutes. These laws prohibit discrimination based on disability in places of public accommodation—including commercial spaces like retail stores—and require owners or operators not only to remove physical barriers but also provide auxiliary aids or alternative methods when necessary.
The plaintiff requests several forms of relief from the court: a declaratory judgment finding defendants in violation of applicable laws; permanent injunctions ordering immediate alterations so that facilities become accessible; modifications in policies or practices where needed; compensatory damages for harm suffered; punitive damages if warranted by findings at trial; disgorgement of profits derived while operating out-of-compliance premises; attorney fees; costs; expenses; and any additional remedies deemed appropriate by the court.
If defendants do not comply promptly with any injunctions issued by the court regarding accessibility improvements or policy changes, Brown asks that operations at 36 St. Marks Place be suspended until compliance is achieved.
The complaint was prepared by Bradly Marks of The Marks Law Firm P.C., representing Altaune Brown. The case is identified as Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-2556.
Source: 126cv2556_Altaune_Brown_v_Ivape_Complaint_Southern_District_of_New_York.pdf
