UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

 CASE NO.:

HOWARD COHAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT

ABC LIQUORS, INC.

a Florida Profit Corporation

d/b/a ABC LIQOURS, #209

Defendant(s).

____________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN (“Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned counsel, 

hereby files this Complaint and sues ABC LIQUORS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a 

ABC LIQOURS, #209 (“Defendant”), for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, 

expenses and costs (including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12182 et. seq., and the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and alleges as 

follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 343 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under Title 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et. seq., based 

on Defendant’s violations of Title III of the ADA. See also, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, as well as 

the 2010 ADA Standards.

2. Venue is proper in this Court, West Palm Beach Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1391(B) and Internal Operating Procedures for the United States District Court For the Southern 

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 1 of 12
District of Florida in that all events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Palm Beach County, 

Florida.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN is sui juris and is a resident of the State of Florida 

residing in Palm Beach County, Florida.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant is the lessee, operator, owner and lessor 

of the Real Property, which is subject to this suit, and is located at 9894 Glades Road, Boca 

Raton, Florida 33424, (“Premises”), and is the owner of the improvements where Premises is 

located.

5. Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is in fact conducting, business within the 

state of Florida.

6. Plaintiff is an individual with numerous permanent disabilities including severe 

spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine with spondylolisthesis; severe spinal stenosis of the cervical 

spine with nerve root compromise on the right side; a non-union fracture of the left acromion 

(shoulder); a labral tear of the left shoulder; a full thickness tear of the right rotator cuff; a right 

knee medial meniscal tear; a repaired ACL and bilateral meniscal tear of the left knee; and severe 

basal joint arthritis of the left thumb. The above listed permanent disabilities and symptoms 

cause sudden onsets of severe pain and substantially limit Plaintiff’s major life activities. As a 

result of these medical conditions, Plaintiff suffers body weakness, mobility limitations, 

abnormal gate, and abnormal balance. Additionally, his ability to lift, reach, bend, stretch and 

twist are substantially restricted.

7. On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff visited Defendant’s Premises. At the time of Plaintiff’s 

visit to the Premises on July 15, 2016, Plaintiff required the use of fully accessible restrooms. 

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 2 of 12
Plaintiff personally visited the Premises, but was denied full and equal access and full and equal 

enjoyment of the facilities, services, goods, and amenities within the Premises, even though he 

was a “bona fide patron”.

8. Following Plaintiff’s July 15, 2016 visit to the Premises, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit 

against Defendant seeking to force Defendant to comply with the ADA and applicate regulations 

thereto. See HOWARD COHAN v. ABC LIQUORS, INC., 9:16-CV-81674-RLR (S.D. Fla.).

9. Plaintiff’s suit was dismissed upon stipulation and notice to the U.S. District 

Court that the parties had settled. 

10. Following the 2016 case and subsequent settlement agreement, Plaintiff returned 

to the Premises on December 24, 2021. During this visit, Plaintiff found that the restroom has 

been fully renovated and redone. 

11. At the time of Plaintiff’s visit to the Premises on December 24, 2021, (and prior 

to instituting this action), Plaintiff suffered from a “qualified disability” under the ADA, and

requires the use of fully accessible restrooms. Plaintiff personally visited the Premises, but was 

denied full and equal access and full and equal enjoyment of the facilities and amenities within 

the Premises, even though he would be classified as a “bona fide patron”.

12. Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, will absolutely return to the Premises and 

avail himself of the services offered when Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the 

policies and practices to accommodate individuals who have physical disabilities.

13. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's Premises and is 

aware that it would be a futile gesture to return to the Premises as long as those violations exist, 

and Plaintiff is not willing to suffer additional discrimination.

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 3 of 12
14. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, direct and indirect injury as a

result of Defendant's discrimination until Defendant is compelled to comply with the

requirements of the ADA. Plaintiff’s abnormal medical conditions and resulting disabilities as 

listed in the Counts below of this Complaint requires the use of fully accessible restrooms, and 

otherwise affects Plaintiff’s ability to enjoy places of public accommodation such as the 

Premises as further detailed throughout this Complaint.

15. Plaintiff would like to be able to be a patron of the Premises in the future and be 

able to enjoy the goods and services that are available to the able-bodied public, but is currently 

precluded from doing so as a result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct as described herein. 

Plaintiff will continue to be precluded from using the Premises until corrective measures are 

taken at the Premises to eliminate the discrimination against persons with physical disabilities.

16. Plaintiff frequently travels to the West Palm Beach/Palm Beach County area. 

During these trips he visits restaurants, bars, shops, hotels, gas stations, entertainment venues, 

and any other places of public accommodation in the area. In this area, Plaintiff has numerous 

friends, family members, as well as the office of his undersigned counsel, Gregory Sconzo, 

which all require frequent visits to the area.

17. Plaintiff intends return to the area where the Premises is located, as he has on 

countless occasions previously, and as he will on countless occasions in the future. 

18. Completely independent of the personal desire to have access to this place of 

public accommodation free of illegal barriers to access, Plaintiff also acts as a “tester” for the 

purpose of discovering, encountering and engaging discrimination against the disabled in public 

accommodations. When acting as a “tester”, Plaintiff employs a routine practice which was 

employed in this matter. Plaintiff personally visits the public accommodation, as Plaintiff did 

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 4 of 12
here and engages all of the barriers to access, or at least of those that Plaintiff is able to access. 

Plaintiff tests all of those barriers to access to determine whether and the extent to which they are 

illegal barriers to access. Plaintiff then proceeds with legal action to enjoin such discrimination. 

Upon resolution of the action and an agreement by the defendant to fix the barriers to access,

Plaintiff will subsequently return to the premises to verify its compliance or non-compliance 

with the ADA and to otherwise use the public accommodation as members of the able-bodied 

community are able to do. If the premises is not in compliance upon his return, Plaintiff has 

repeatedly brought breach of contract actions against the defendants for their failures to fix the 

barriers to access. In some instances, Plaintiff has even filed four and five separate actions 

against the same premises so as to ensure that they finally comply with the ADA. 

19. Plaintiff fully intends and will return to this Premises in this tester capacity and 

will pursue his routine practice of ensuring compliance. Independent of his personal reasons for

subsequent visits to this Premises as outlined above, Plaintiff intends to visit the Premises 

regularly to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA, and its maintenance of the 

accessible features of Premises. 

20. In this instance, Plaintiff, in Plaintiff’s individual capacity and as a “tester”, 

visited Premises, encountered barriers to access at Premises, and engaged and tested those 

barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury, and will continue to suffer such harm and injury as 

a result of the illegal barriers to access and the ADA violations set forth herein. It is Plaintiff’s 

belief that said violations will not be corrected without Court intervention, and thus Plaintiff will 

suffer legal harm and injury in the near future.

21. Plaintiff, in his capacity as a tester, will absolutely return to the Premises when 

either Defendant enters into an agreement to modify the Premises and/or an agreement to modify

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 5 of 12
the policies and practices to accommodate individuals who have physical disabilities or 

otherwise advises Plaintiff that the barriers to access and discriminatory policies have been 

removed. The purpose of said visit will be to confirm said modifications and policy changes have 

been completed in accordance with the requirements of the ADA.

VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

22. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 21

above as if fully stated herein.

23. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the Americans With Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. Commercial enterprises were provided one and a half (1.5) 

years from enactment of the statute to implement its requirements. The effective date of Title III 

of the ADA was January 26, 1992, or January 26, 1993 if Defendant(s) have ten (10) or fewer 

employees and gross receipts of $500,000.00 or less. See 42 U.S.C. § 12182; 28 C.F.R. §

36.508(a).

24. Congress found, among other things, that:

a. some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities, and 

this number shall increase as the population continues to grow older;

b. historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with 

disabilities and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against 

disabled individuals continue to be a pervasive social problem, requiring serious 

attention;

c. discrimination against disabled individuals persists in such critical areas as 

employment, housing, public accommodations, transportation, communication, 

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 6 of 12
recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting and access to public 

services and public facilities;

d. individuals with disabilities continually suffer forms of discrimination, including 

outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, 

transportation, and communication barriers, failure to make modifications to 

existing facilities and practices. Exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, 

segregation, and regulation to lesser services, programs, benefits, or other 

opportunities; and,

e. the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice 

denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to 

pursue those opportunities for which our country is justifiably famous, and 

accosts the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting 

from dependency and non-productivity.

42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(1)-(3),(5) and (9).

25. Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the ADA was to:

a. provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for elimination of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

b. provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities; and

c. invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the 

fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major 

areas of discrimination faced on a daily basis by people with disabilities.

U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)(2) and (4).

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 7 of 12
26. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(7), 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 and the 2010 ADA 

Standards, Defendant’s Premises is a place of public accommodation covered by the ADA by the 

fact it provides services to the general public and must be in compliance therewith. 

27. Defendant has discriminated and continues to discriminate against Plaintiff and 

others who are similarly situated, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations located at the Premises, as 

prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 and 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq., and by failing to remove 

architectural barriers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).

28. Plaintiff has visited Premises, and has been denied full and safe equal access to 

the facilities and therefore suffered an injury in fact.

29. Plaintiff would like to return and enjoy the goods and/or services at Premises on a 

spontaneous, full and equal basis. However, Plaintiff is precluded from doing so by the 

Defendant’s failure and refusal to provide disabled persons with full and equal access to their 

facilities. Therefore, Plaintiff continues to suffer from discrimination and injury due to the 

architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA.

30. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a), on July 26, 1991, the 

Department of Justice, Officer of the Attorney General promulgated Federal Regulations to 

implement the requirements of the ADA. See 28 C.F.R. § 36 and its successor the 2010 ADA 

Standards ADA Accessibility guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. § 36, 

under which said Department may obtain civil penalties of up to $55,000.00 for the first 

violation and $110,000.00 for and subsequent violation.

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 8 of 12
31. Based on a preliminary inspection of the Premises, Defendant is in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 12182 et. seq. and the 2010 American Disabilities Act Standards et. seq., and is 

discriminating against Plaintiff as a result of, inter alia, the following specific violations:

Men's Restroom

a. Failure to provide sufficient clear floor space around a water closet without any

obstructing elements in this space in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§4.22.3, 603, 

603.2.3, 604, 604.3 and 604.3.1. (trash can)

b. Failure to provide operable parts that are functional or are in the proper reach 

ranges as required for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 

309, 309.1, 309.3, 309.4 and 308. (deodorizer) 

c. Providing grab bars of improper horizontal length or spacing as required along the 

side wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 604, 604.5, 604.5.1 and 604.5.2. 

d. Failure to provide toilet paper dispensers in the proper position in front of the 

water closet or at the correct height above the finished floor in violation of 2010 

ADAAG §§ 604, 604.7 and 309.4. 

e. Failure to provide grab bars at 33 inches minimum and 36 inches maximum above 

the finished floor measured to the top of the gripping surface in violation of 2010 

ADAAG §§ 609, 609.4 and 609.7. (rear and side)

f. Failure to provide the proper insulation or protection for plumbing or other sharp 

or abrasive objects under a sink or countertop in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 

606 and 606.5. 

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 9 of 12
g. Failure to provide proper knee clearance for a person with a disability under a 

counter or sink element in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§ 306, 306.1 306.3, 606 

and 606.2

32. To the best of Plaintiff’s belief and knowledge, Defendant has failed to eliminate 

the specific violations set forth in paragraph 31 herein.

33. Although Defendant is charged with having knowledge of the violations, 

Defendant may not have actual knowledge of said violations until this Complaint makes 

Defendant aware of same.

34. To date, the readily achievable barriers and other violations of the ADA still exist 

and have not been remedied or altered in such a way as to effectuate compliance with the 

provisions of the ADA.

35. As the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises, Defendant is required to 

comply with the ADA. To the extent the Premises, or portions thereof, existed and were 

occupied prior to January 26, 1992, the owner, lessor, lessee or operator has been under a

continuing obligation to remove architectural barriers at the Premises where removal was readily 

achievable, as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.402. 

36. To the extent the Premises, or portions thereof, were constructed for occupancy 

after January 26, 1993 the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises was under an 

obligation to design and construct such Premises such that it is readily accessible to and usable 

by individuals with disabilities, as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.401.

37. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of this 

action. Plaintiff is entitled to have his reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses paid by 

Defendant, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 10 of 12
38. All of the above violations are readily achievable to modify in order to bring 

Premises or the Facility/Property into compliance with the ADA.

39. In instance(s) where the 2010 ADAAG standard does not apply, the 1991 

ADAAG standard applies and all of the violations listed in paragraph 31 herein can be applied to 

the 1991 ADAAG standards.

40. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is vested with the authority to grant 

Plaintiff’s injunctive relief, including an order to alter the subject facility to make them readily 

accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and 

closing the Subject Facility until the requisite modifications are completed.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant and requests the 

following injunctive and declaratory relief:

1. That this Court declares that Premises owned, operated and/or controlled by 

Defendant is in violation of the ADA;

2. That this Court enter an Order requiring Defendant to alter their facilities to make 

them accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the full extent 

required by Title III of the ADA;

3. That this Court enter an Order directing the Defendant to evaluate and neutralize 

their policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such 

reasonable time so as to allow the Defendant to undertake and complete corrective 

procedures to Premises;

4. That this Court award reasonable attorney’s fees, all costs (including, but not 

limited to the court costs and expert fees) and other expenses of suit to the 

Plaintiff; and,

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 11 of 12
5. That this Court award such other and further relief as it may deem necessary, just 

and proper.

Dated November 4, 2022.

Sconzo Law Office, P.A.

3825 PGA Boulevard, Suite 207

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

Telephone: (561) 729-0940

Facsimile: (561) 491-9459

By: /s/ Gregory S. Sconzo 

GREGORY S. SCONZO, ESQUIRE

Florida Bar No.: 0105553

SAMANTHA L. SIMPSON, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 1010423

Primary Email: greg@sconzolawoffice.com

Primary Email: samantha@sconzolawoffice.com 

Secondary Email: alexa@sconzolawoffice.com 

Case 9:22-cv-81724-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/04/2022 Page 12 of 12