(Declaratory Relief)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  105. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.  106.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that the Website  contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods, services  and facilities of the Website and by extension the Restaurant, which Defendant owns, operates,  25  and/or controls, fails to comply with applicable laws including, but not limited to, Title III of the  Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.  107.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each  of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  (Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law,   Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq. — Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   (Violation of New York City Human Rights Law,  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102, et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   2.  There are readily available, well established guidelines on the Internet for making  websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have been followed by  other large business entities in making the Website accessible, including but not limited to:  ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard. Incorporating the basic  components to make the Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of  Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   20.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks certification  of the following nationwide class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure: “all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access the  Website and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered  by Defendant, during the relevant statutory period.”    21.  Plaintiff seeks certification of the following New York subclass pursuant to  Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and, alternatively, 23(b)(3): “all legally blind individuals in New  York State who have attempted to access the Website and as a result have been denied access to  the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Defendant, during the relevant statutory period.”  7   22.  There are hundreds of thousands of visually impaired persons in New York State.  There are approximately 8.1 million people in the United States who are visually impaired. Thus,  the persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is impractical and the  disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to the Court.   23.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an  inaccessible website denying blind persons access to the goods and services of the Website and  the Restaurant. Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to remove access barriers, blind  persons have been and are being denied full and equal access to independently browse, select and  shop on the Website and by extension the goods and services offered through the Website by the  Restaurant.   24.  There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including without  limitation, the following:  a.  Whether the Website is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;  b.  Whether the Website is a “place or provider of public accommodation” under  the laws of New York;  c.  Whether Defendant through its website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations  to people with visual disabilities in violation of the ADA; and  d.  Whether Defendant through its website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations  to people with visual disabilities in violation of the laws of New York.   25.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class. The class,  similarly to the Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that  8  Defendant has violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove  access barriers on the Website, so it can be independently accessible to the class of people who are  legally blind.   26.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Class because Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent and  experienced in complex class action litigation, and because Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic  to the members of the class. Class certification of the claims is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Class, making appropriate both declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the  Class as a whole.   27.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)  because questions of law and fact common to Class members clearly predominate over questions  affecting only individual class members, and because a class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   28.  Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of this lawsuit as a class action in  that it is likely to avoid the burden that would be otherwise placed upon the judicial system by the  filing of numerous similar suits by people with visual disabilities throughout the United States.   29.  References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  3.  There are readily available, well established guidelines on the Internet for making  websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have been followed by  other large business entities in making the Website accessible, including but not limited to:  ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard. Incorporating the basic  components to make the Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of  Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   30.  Defendant operates the Restaurant, a thematic restaurant chain, with locations  throughout the United States. It owns and operates one location in New York State, located at 300  Third Street, Niagara Falls, NY 14303.  9   31.  The Website is a service and benefit offered by Defendant throughout the United  States, including New York State. The Website is owned, controlled and/or operated by Defendant.   32.  Among the features offered by the Website are the following:  (a)  restaurant information, allowing persons who wish to dine at the Restaurant  to learn its location, hours, and phone numbers;  (b)  a Wild Bunch Kids Zone tab, displaying a kid’s menu and other activities for  children who dine with their families at the Restaurant;  (c)  information about making a reservation;  (d)  information about the Restaurant’s social networks;  (e)  information about the Restaurant’s Email Club;  (f)  information about parties and group events;  (g)  information  about  the Restaurant’s testimonials  and employment  opportunities; and  (h)  an online shop displaying many of the products and services available at the  Restaurant.   33.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of denying the blind access  to the Website, including the goods and services offered by Defendant through the Website. Due  to Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the Website, blind individuals have  been and are being denied equal access to the Restaurant, as well as to the numerous goods,  services and benefits offered to the public through the Website.   34.  Defendant denies the blind access to goods, services and information made  available through the Website by preventing them from freely navigating the Website.  10   35.  The Internet has become a significant source of information for conducting business  and for doing everyday activities such as shopping, banking, etc., for sighted and blind persons.   36.  The blind access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with screen-reading  software which vocalizes visual information on a computer screen. Except for a blind person  whose residual vision is still sufficient to use magnification, screen access software provides the  only method by which a blind person can independently access the Internet. Unless websites are  designed to allow for use in this manner, blind persons are unable to fully access Internet websites  and the information, products and services contained therein.   37.  There are well established guidelines for making websites accessible to blind  people. These guidelines have been in place for at least several years and have been followed  successfully by other large business entities in making their websites accessible. The Web  Accessibility Initiative (WAI), a project of the World Wide Web Consortium which is the leading  standards organization of the Web, has developed guidelines for website accessibility. The federal  government has also promulgated website accessibility standards under Section 508 of the  Rehabilitation Act. These guidelines are readily available via the Internet, so that a business  designing a website can easily access them. These guidelines recommend several basic  components for making websites accessible, including, but not limited to: ensuring that all  functions can be performed using a keyboard and not just a mouse; ensuring that image maps are  accessible, and adding headings so that blind people can easily navigate the site. Without these  very basic components a website will be inaccessible to a blind person using a screen reader.   38.  The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and  blind persons using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers are pervasive and  include, but are not limited to: the lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible forms, the lack of  11  adequate prompting and labeling; the lack of navigation links; the denial of keyboard access; and  the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   39.  Alternative text (“Alt-text”) is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image  on a website. Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that a screen  reader can speak the alternative text while a sighted user sees the picture. Alt-text does not change  the visual presentation except that it appears as a text pop-up when the mouse moves over the  picture. There are many important pictures on the Website that lack a text equivalent. The lack of  alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the  graphics. (Screen readers detect and vocalize alt-text to provide a description of the image to a  blind computer user.) As a result, Plaintiff and blind customers are unable to determine what is on  the Website, browse the site, investigate the Restaurant’s menu and/or make a reservation online.   40.  Similarly, the Website lacks accessible image maps. An image map is a function  that combines multiple words and links into one single image to allow user interaction. Visual  details on this single image highlight different “hot spots,” which, when clicked on, allow the user  to jump to many different destinations within the Website. For an image map to be accessible, it  must contain alt-text for the various “hot spots.” The “Locations” page contains an image map  detailing locations throughout the United States, but the image map does not contain alt-text. The  image maps on the Website’s locations are therefore inaccessible to Plaintiff and other blind  individuals attempting to make a reservation.   41. In addition, the Website’s online reservation service is inaccessible for blind users,  rendering it impossible to make a reservation without a sighted companion. Specifically, when  prompted to select a date, the Website produces a calendar view which is only accessible through  the use of a mouse. Yet, it is a fundamental tenet of web accessibility that for a web page to be  12  accessible to Plaintiff and blind people, it must be possible for the user to interact with the page  using only the keyboard. Indeed, Plaintiff and blind users cannot use a mouse because  manipulating the mouse is a visual activity of moving the mouse pointer from one visual spot on  the page to another. Due to the Website’s inaccessible design, screen reader software fails to  prompt users to manually type in their preferred date.    42.  According to WCAG 2 Guideline 2.4.1, a mechanism is necessary to bypass blocks  of content that are repeated on multiple webpages because requiring users to extensively tab before  reaching the main content is an unacceptable barrier to accessing the Website. Plaintiff must tab  through every menu option on the Website to reach the desired service. Thus, the Website’s  inaccessible design denies Plaintiff and blind customers the ability to independently make  purchases on the Website.   43.  Due to the Website’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and blind customers must in turn  spend time, energy, and/or money to make a reservation at the Restaurant. Some blind customers  may require a driver to get to the Restaurant or require assistance in navigating the Restaurant. By  contrast, if the Website was accessible, a blind person could independently investigate menus and  make reservation via the Internet as sighted individuals can and do.   44.  The Website thus contains access barriers which deny full and equal access to  Plaintiff, who would otherwise use the Website and who would otherwise be able to fully and  equally enjoy the benefits and services of the Restaurant.   45.  Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to make a reservation on the Website, most  recently in September 2017, but was unable to do so independently because of the many access  barriers on the Website. Additionally, Plaintiff was unable to find the location on the Website,  preventing Plaintiff from going into the physical location to complete a reservation. These access  13  barriers have caused the Website to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and  visually impaired individuals.   46.  Plaintiff experienced many barriers in attempting to access The Website. For  instance, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are part of a series of web  accessibility guidelines published by Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web  Consortium (W3C), which are the main international standards organization for the Internet.  Plaintiff was completely blocked from online ordering since the Website is barely accessible.  Defendant has failed to adhere to the recommendations of many of these guidelines such as,    a. WCAG 2.1 recommending businesses to make all functionality available from a  keyboard since the Website requires the visual activity of mouse manipulation to  complete a purchase.    a. WCAG 2.4 recommending businesses to provide help for users to navigate, find  content and determine where they are on the Website due to the Website’s lack of  links and headings.    b. WCAG 4.1 recommending businesses to maximize compatibility with current and  future user agents, including assistive technologies, for the reasons stated above.   47.  As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that the Website  contains access barriers causing it to be inaccessible, and not independently usable by, blind and  visually impaired individuals.   48.  These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the Website and the Restaurant.   49.  Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including but not limited  to the following policies or practices:   14  (a)  constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to blind class  members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  (b)  constructed and maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive and/or  obvious that is inaccessible to blind class members; and/or  (c)  failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   50.  Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.  51.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations  as if set forth fully herein.   52.  Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a),  provides that “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and  equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any  place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place  of public accommodation.” Title III also prohibits an entity from “[u]tilizing standards or criteria  or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability.” 42  U.S.C. § 12181(b)(2)(D)(I).   53.  The Restaurant is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E). The Website is a service, privilege or advantage of  Defendant. The Website is a service that is by and integrated with the Restaurant. Independent of  the Restaurant, the Website is also a public accommodation.  15   54.  Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because they own and operate the  Website.   55.  Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I) it is unlawful  discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities the  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  or accommodations of an entity.   56.  Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful  discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities an  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  or accommodation, which is equal to the opportunities afforded to other individuals.   57.  Specifically, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(II), unlawful  discrimination includes, among other things, “a failure to make reasonable modifications in  policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities,  unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the  nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.”    58.  In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III), unlawful  discrimination also includes, among other things, “a failure to take such steps as may be necessary  to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise  treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services,  unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of  the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result  in an undue burden.”  16   59.  There are readily available, well established guidelines on the Internet for making  websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have been followed by  other large business entities in making the Website accessible, including but not limited to:  ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard. Incorporating the basic  components to make the Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of  Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   60.  The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §  12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Patrons of Defendant who are blind  have been denied full and equal access to the Website, have not been provided services that are  provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and/or have been provided services that are inferior  to the services provided to non-disabled patrons.    61.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.    62.  As such, Defendant discriminate, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full  and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or  opportunities of the Website and the Restaurant in violation of Title III of the Americans with  Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   63.  Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful  practices, Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass will continue to suffer irreparable  harm.   64.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.  17   65.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.     66.  Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  67.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   68.  N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) provides that it is “an unlawful discriminatory  practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent,  agent or employee of any place of public accommodation … because of the … disability  of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any  of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.”   69.   The Restaurant is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). The Website is a service, privilege or advantage of the  Restaurant. The Website is a service that is by and integrated with the Restaurant. Independent of  the Restaurant, the Website is a public accommodation.   70.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because they own and  operate the Restaurant and the Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec.  Law § 292(1).   71.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to the Website, causing the Website and the services integrated with  18  the Restaurant to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that Defendant makes available  to the non-disabled public.    72.  Specifically, under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(I), unlawful discriminatory  practice includes, among other things, “a refusal to make reasonable modifications in  policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford facilities,  privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless such  person can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the  nature of such facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.”   73.  In addition, under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(II), unlawful discriminatory  practice also includes, “a refusal to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no  individual with a disability is excluded or denied services because of the absence of auxiliary  aids and services, unless such person can demonstrate that taking such steps would  fundamentally alter the nature of the facility, privilege, advantage or accommodation being  offered or would result in an undue burden.”   74.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the class  on the basis of a disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exc. Law  19  § 296(2) in that Defendant has:   (a)  constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to blind class  members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  (b)  constructed and maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive and/or  obvious that is inaccessible to blind class members; and/or  (c)  failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   75.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   76.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full  and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or  opportunities of the Website and the Restaurant under § 296(2) et seq. and/or its implementing  regulations. Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful  practices, Plaintiff and members of the subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   77.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of New York State Human  Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   78.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties and  fines pursuant to N.Y. Exc. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   79.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   80.  Pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.   20  81.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.    82.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   83.  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40 provides that “all persons within the jurisdiction  of this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and  privileges of any places of public accommodations, resort or amusement, subject only to the  conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons. No persons,  being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any such  place shall directly or indirectly refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the  accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges thereof …”     84.  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) provides that “no person because of …  disability, as such term is defined in section two hundred ninety-two of executive law,  be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights, or to any harassment, as  defined in section 240.25 of the penal law, in the exercise thereof, by any other person  or by any firm, corporation or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision”   85.   The Restaurant located in New York State is a sales establishment and public  accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2). The Website is a  service, privilege or advantage of the Restaurant. The Website is a service that is by and integrated  with the Restaurant.  21   86.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because they own and operate  the Restaurant and the Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law §  40-c(2).   87.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to the Website, causing the Website and the services integrated with  the Restaurant to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that Defendant makes available  to the non-disabled public.    88.  In addition, N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41 states that “any corporation which shall  violate any of the provisions of sections forty, forty-a, forty-b or forty-two … shall for each  and every violation thereof be liable to a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars nor  more than five hundred dollars, to be recovered by the person aggrieved thereby…”   89.  Specifically, under NY Civil Rights Law § 40-d, “any person who shall violate any  of the provisions of the foregoing section, or subdivision three of section 240.30 or section 240.31  of the penal law, or who shall aid or incite the violation of any of said provisions shall for each  and every violation thereof be liable to a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars nor more  than five hundred dollars, to be recovered by the person aggrieved thereby in any court of  22  competent jurisdiction in the county in which the defendant shall reside …”   90.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   91.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class on the basis of disability are being directly or  indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges  thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.    92.  Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per instance,  as well as civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for each and every offense.  93.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.   94.  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) provides that “It shall be an unlawful  discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager,  superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public accommodation, because  of … disability … directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person, any of  the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.”    95.  The Restaurant is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(9). The Website is a service, privilege or  advantage of the Restaurant. Independent of the Restaurant, the Website is a public  accommodation.   96.  Defendant is subject to City Law because they own and operate the Restaurant  23  and the Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8- 102(1).   97.  Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing to  update or remove access barriers to the Website, causing the Website and the services  integrated with the Restaurant to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility  denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that Defendant  makes available to the non-disabled public. Specifically, Defendant is required to “make  reasonable accommodation to the needs of persons with disabilities … any person prohibited  by the provisions of [§ 8-107 et seq.] from discriminating on the basis of disability shall make  reasonable accommodation to enable a person with a disability to … enjoy the right or rights in  question provided that the disability is known or should have been known by the covered  entity.” N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(15)(a).   98.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the class  on the basis of a disability in violation of the N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) and § 8- 107(15)(a) in that Defendant has:   (d)  constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to blind class  members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  (e)  constructed and maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive and/or  obvious that is inaccessible to blind class members; and/or  (f)  failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   99.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  24  100.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of disability in the full  and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations  and/or opportunities of the Website and the Restaurant under § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its  implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in  these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members of the subclass will continue to suffer irreparable  harm.  101.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of City law and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.  102.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties and fines  under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120(8) and § 8-126(a) for each offense.  103.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.  104.  Pursuant to N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120 and § 8-126 and the remedies,  procedures, and rights set forth and incorporated therein Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth  below. 