126 S.Ct. 877. Consequently, there is now “a colorable basis for [New York state] to suspect that an express congressional abrogation [in the ADA] is invalid” and the state has at least partial immunity from suit for some disability claims under the ADA. Garcia, 280 F.3d at 114 n. 4. Accordingly, New York’s continued acceptance of federal funds under § 504 after Garcia constitutes a knowing waiver of sovereign immunity under that provision. Warren, 81 Fed.Appx. at 401 (vacating the district court’s decision because it did not analyze, in light of Garcia, whether New York had waived sovereign immunity under the Rehabilitation Act for the time period in question); Forziano v. Indep. Grp. Home Living Program, Inc., 13-CV-0370, 2014 WL 1277912, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2014) (Wexler, J.) (<HOLDING>); Keitt v. New York City, 882 F.Supp.2d 412,
recognizing there is some confusion among the circuit courts as to the availability of damages under  504 of the rehabilitation act and without expressing an opinion on the matter noting that courts generally agree damages are available for violations of  504 holding  504 of the rehabilitation act does not require equivalent benefits for different disabilities holding rehabilitation act applicable holding that post2001 new york was clearly subject to suit under section 504 of the rehabilitation act holding that punitive damages may not be awarded  in suits brought under  202 of the ada and  504 of the rehabilitation act