(Disability Discrimination in Violations of NYC Human Rights Laws § 8-107(4))   24.  Plaintiff is paralyzed and cannot walk. As a result, he uses a wheelchair for mobility.   25.  Defendant BEC Foods, LLC owns or operates a food service establishment located at  148 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY (hereinafter ‘facility’).   26.  Throughout 2015 and 2016, Plaintiff attempted to enter and use Defendant’s public  accommodation. However, was however, was unable because of an unlawful architectural barrier  – a step.    27.  Plaintiff resides less than 2 blocks away from Defendant's public accommodation and  is frequently near Defendant's facility.   29.  Plaintiff has the intention to return to Defendant’s public accommodation once it  becomes readily accessible to and usable by Mr. Zayas.   30.  After being denied service and access, Plaintiff sent Defendant a letter describing his  experience and explaining the architectural barriers.   31.  The removal of existing architectural barriers is readily achievable.    32.  To date, Defendant has failed to remove the architectural barriers.  PLAINTIFF’s FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION  (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act)   33.  Defendant’s facility located at 148 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY is a public  accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. §   34.  Defendant has failed to make adequate accommodations and modifications to its facility  located at 148 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY   35.  Defendant has failed to remove all architectural barriers that are structural in violation  of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).   36.104, New York State Human Rights Law § 292(9), and New York City Administrative Code  § 8-102(9) (“place or provider of public accommodation”).   36.  There exist readily achievable modifications which would make Defendant’s public  accommodation accessible and readily usable by Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.   37.  Defendant failed to make the necessary readily achievable modifications to its public  accommodation.   39.  It is not impossible for Defendant to remove the architectural barriers which exist at  its facility.   40.  Defendant failed to design and construct its facility that is readily accessible to and usable  by Plaintiff in violation of 42 U.S. Code § 12183(a)(1).   41.  It is not structurally impracticable for Defendant’s facility to be accessible.   42.  Defendant failed to alter its facility to the maximum extent feasible in violation of 42  U.S. Code § 12183(a)(2).   43.  Defendant’s facility is not fully accessible to, or readily useable by individuals with  disabilities.   45.  Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, on the  basis of their disability, in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,  privileges, advantages, or accommodations of its public accommodation in violation of 42 U.S.  Code § 12182(a).   46.  Defendant has subjected Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, on the basis of  their disability, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, denial of the  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  or accommodations of Defendant in violation of 42 U.S. Code § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   47.  Defendant has afforded Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, on the basis of their  disability, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the  opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or  accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals in violation of 42 U.S. Code  § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).   48.  Defendant has provided Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, on the basis of  their disability, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good,  service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that  provided to other individuals in violation of 42 U.S. Code § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).   49.  Defendant has not afforded plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, the goods,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations in the most integrated setting  appropriate in violation of 42 U.S. Code § 12182(b)(1)(B).   51.  Defendant has imposed or applied an eligibility criteria that screened out or tended to  screen out Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, from fully and equally enjoying any goods,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered in violation of 42  U.S. Code § 12182(b)(2)(A)(i).   52.  Defendant has failed to make reasonable modifications in their policies, practices, or  procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities,  privileges, advantages, or accommodations to Plaintiff in violation of 42 U.S. Code §  12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).   53.  Defendant should have achieved accessibility by January 26, 1992.    54.  The barriers to access Defendant’s facility continue to exist.   55.  Reasonable accommodations exist which do not impose an undue hardship on the  operation of the Defendant’s program or activity.   56.  Reasonable accommodations could be made which do not fundamentally alter the nature  of the Defendant’s program or activity.  PLAINTIFF’s SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION  (Violations of New York State Human Rights Laws)   57.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all allegations set forth in this  Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   58.  Defendant has not provided Plaintiff and others similarly situated with evenhanded  treatment in violation of New York State Human Rights Law § 296.   60.  Defendant has, because of Plaintiff’s disability, directly or indirectly, refused, withheld  from or denied Plaintiff any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of their  public accommodation.     61.  Defendant has demonstrated that the patronage or custom thereat of Plaintiff and others  similarly situated, is unwelcome, objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited.   62.  Defendant and its agents discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of New York  State Human Rights Law § 296.   63.  Defendant discriminated in against Plaintiff by creating, fostering, and otherwise failing  to prevent or remedy the discrimination against Plaintiff, in violation of New York State Human  Rights Law § 296.   64.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant unlawful discrimination in violation of  the New York State Human Rights Laws, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer mental  anguish and emotional distress.  PLAINTIFF's THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION  (Violations of New York State Civil Rights Laws)   65.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all allegations set forth in this  Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   66.  On the basis of Plaintiff’s disability, Defendant has violated his Civil Rights.   67.  Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the penalty prescribed by Civil Rights  Law § 40-c and 40-d, in the amount of $500 for each and every violation.   68.  Pursuant to NY Civil Rights law, defendant is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.   70.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all allegations set forth in this  Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   71.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code § 8-107(4), Defendant has not reasonably  accommodated Plaintiff and others similarly situated.   72.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, Defendant has unlawfully discriminated  against Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.   73.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, the owner, lessee, proprietor,  manager,  agent and employee of Defendant’s public accommodation, have, because of the actual or  perceived disability of the Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, refused, withheld from and denied  Plaintiff the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.   74.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, on the basis of Plaintiff’s disability,  Defendant has demonstrated that the patronage or custom of Plaintiff and all others similarly  situated, is unwelcome, objectionable, and not acceptable.   75.   Pursuant to New York City Human Rights Law § 8-502, notice of this action has been  served upon New York City's Commission on Human Rights.   76.  As a direct and proximate result of the disability discrimination perpetrated by  defendant in violation of the New York City Human Rights Laws, Plaintiff has suffered and  continues to suffer mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to  depression, humiliation, stress, embarrassment, anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self- confidence, and emotional pain and suffering.  77.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all allegations set forth in this  Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   78.  Reasonable accommodations and modifications are necessary to enable Plaintiff and all  others similarly situated the ability to enjoy the non-restricted access and use of the public  accommodation in question.   79.  Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff reasonable accommodations and modifications in  violation of NYC Human Rights Laws 8-107(15).   80.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code 8-102(4) and (18), and 8-107(4) and 8- 107(15), Defendant has not reasonably accommodated Plaintiff and others similarly situated.   81.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, Defendant has unlawfully discriminated  against Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.   82.  Reasonable accommodations and modifications are necessary to enable Plaintiff and all  others similarly situated the ability to enjoy the non-restricted access and use of the public  accommodation in question.   83.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager,  agent and employee of Defendant’s public accommodation, have, because of the actual or  perceived disability of the Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, refused, withheld from and denied  Plaintiff the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.   84.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, Defendant has demonstrated that, because  of Plaintiff's disability, the patronage or custom of Plaintiff and all others similarly situated, is  unwelcome, objectionable, and not acceptable.  