(Declaratory Relief)  113. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 112 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.  26  114. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that Spencofootwear.com  contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods, services  and facilities of Spencofootwear.com, which Fourfoot owns, operates and/or controls, fails to  comply with applicable laws including, but not limited to, Title III of the American 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.  115. 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.  (Violation of New York City Human Rights Law,  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102, et seq.)  101. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 100 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.  102. 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  24  . . . disability . . . directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person, any of  the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.”  103. Spencofootwear.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation  within the definition of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(9).    104. Defendant is subject to City Law because it owns and operates  Spencofootwear.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Administrative Code  § 8-102(1).  105. Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing  to update or remove access barriers to Spencofootwear.com, causing Spencofootwear.com 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).  106. 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:  (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   25  (c) failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of substantial  harm and discrimination to blind class members.  107. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.  108. 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 Spencofootwear.com under N.Y.C. Administrative  Code § 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 class will  continue to suffer irreparable harm.  109. 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.  110. 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.  111. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.  112. Pursuant to N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120(8) and § 8-126(a) and the  remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and incorporated therein, 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.))   (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. – Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)   (Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.))   25. Defendant, Fourfoot, LLC, controls and operates Spencofootwear.com. in New  York State and throughout the United States and the world.    26. Spencofootwear.com is a commercial website that offers products and services   for online sale.  The online store allows the user to browse footwear and related products, make  purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.   27. Among the features offered by Spencofootwear.com are the following:  (a) Consumers may use the website to connect with Fourfoot on social media, using  such sites as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest;  (b) an online store, allowing customers to purchase the various lines of comfort and  support footwear,, insoles, and related products; and  (c) the ability to “ask the experts” about foot related problems, learns about sales  and promotions, and about the company.   28. This case arises out of Fourfoot’s policy and practice of denying the blind access  to the goods and services offered by Spencofootwear.com.  Due to Fourfoot’s failure and refusal  to remove access barriers to Spencofootwear.com, blind individuals have been and are being  denied equal access to Fourfoot, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered  to the public through Spencofootwear.com.   29. Fourfoot denies the blind access to goods, services and information made  available through Spencofootwear.com by preventing them from freely navigating  Spencofootwear.com.  9   30. Spencofootwear.com 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: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down  menus, the lack of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of  keyboard access, empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the  same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   31. 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 sighted users see 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 Spencofootwear.com 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 Spencofootwear.com  customers are unable to determine what is on the website, browse the website or investigate and/or  make purchases.   32. Spencofootwear.com also lacks prompting information and accommodations  necessary to allow blind shoppers who use screen-readers to locate and accurately fill-out online  forms.  On a shopping site such as Spencofootwear.com, these forms include search fields to  locate footwear, fields that specify the size and color, and fields used to fill-out personal  information, including address and credit card information.  Due to lack of adequate labeling,  Plaintiff and blind customers cannot make purchases or inquiries as to Defendant’s merchandise,  including size and color, nor can they enter their personal identification and financial information  with confidence and security.  In fact, when Plaintiff attempted to a color and size, her screen- 10  reader could not recognize the buttons and she was unable to “add to cart.”  Consequently, she  was unable to proceed to checkout and unable to complete a transaction.   33. Additional accessibility issues with the spencofootwear.com website include:  Summary  The Spenco Footwear website has a lot of accessibility issues. The website is full of unlabeled graphics,  buttons, and links. It also has a lot of random errors. Plaintiff could not successfully add an item to the  cart.  Homepage    Navigation is confusing. Plaintiff first heard the website name, followed by the search field, and  then the website name again then the URL is announced. There isn’t a visible focus so Plaintiff  had no idea what is being read.    After the menu items were announced, Plaintiff only heard unlabeled graphics or unlabeled links  until the footer.    The search field doesn’t have the correct role. It’s announced as a list instead of a field.  Product page    When Plaintiff clicked on a product, she was directed to the product page but instead of  announcing the product name, heard a product id. In the case of the Women’s Oasis Slide” she  heard: “product equals product ID 699 link.”    All product images were unlabeled. Plaintiff just heard the generic product id that she heard  when we first landed on the page.    After the product id, she heard a URL announced, but no focus on the screen so she wasn’t sure  what was being read or why.    The review button and social media buttons were skipped.    The size section is announced as a list and then just a number without any indication as to what  was being hearing.  Therefore, Plaintiff was unable to select size.    The color section label isn’t announced. Plaintiff first heard 4 blank links followed by 4 colors.    Plaintiff couldn’t select a color or size with a keyboard.    34. On Spencofootwear.com, blind customers are not aware if the desired  products, such as footwear, have been added to the shopping cart because the screen-reader does  not indicate the type of product.  Moreover, blind customers are unable to select the size or color  of the product they desire.  Therefore, blind customers are essentially prevented from purchasing  any items on Spencofootwear.com.  11   35. Furthermore, Spencofootwear.com lacks accessible image maps.  An image  map is a function that combines multiple words and links into one single image.  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 image maps on Spencofootwear.com’s  menu page do not contain adequate alt-text and are therefore inaccessible to Plaintiff and the  other blind individuals attempting to make a purchase.  When Plaintiff tried to access the menu  link in order to make a purchase, she was unable to access it completely.   36. Spencofootwear.com also lacks accessible forms.  Color and size boxes allow  customers to specify the color and size of certain items.  On Spencofootwear.com, blind  customers are unable to select specific color and size because the screen-reader does not indicate  the function of the box.  As a result, blind customers are denied access to the color and size box.   Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to locate the shopping cart because the shopping cart form does  not specify the purpose of the shopping cart.  As a result, blind customers are denied access to  the shopping cart.  Consequently, blind customers are unsuccessful in adding products into their  shopping carts and are essentially prevented from purchasing items on Spencofootwear.com.   37. Moreover, the lack of navigation links on Defendant’s website makes  attempting to navigate through Spencofootwear.com even more time consuming and confusing  for Plaintiff and blind consumers.   38. Spencofootwear.com requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction.   Yet, it is a fundamental tenet of web accessibility that for a web page to be 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.   12  Thus, Spencofootwear.com’s inaccessible design, which requires the use of a mouse to complete  a transaction, denies Plaintiff and blind customers the ability to independently navigate and/or  make purchases on Spencofootwear.com.   39. Due to Spencofootwear.com’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and blind customers  must in turn spend time, energy, and/or money to make their purchases at traditional brick-and- mortar retailers.  Some blind customers may require a driver to get to the stores or require  assistance in navigating the stores.  By contrast, if Spencofootwear.com was accessible, a blind  person could independently investigate products and make purchases via the Internet as sighted  individuals can and do.  According to WCAG 2.1 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 navigation bar option and footer on Defendant’s  website in an attempt to reach the desired service.  Thus, Spencofootwear.com’s inaccessible  design, which requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, denies Plaintiff and blind  customers the ability to independently make purchases on Spencofootwear.com.   40. Spencofootwear.com thus contains access barriers which deny the full and  equal access to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Spencofootwear.com and who would  otherwise be able to fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of Spencofootwear.com in  New York State and throughout the United States.   41. Plaintiff, Mary Conner, has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase  on Spencofootwear.com, most recently on November 16, 2019, but was unable to do so  independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant’s website.  These access  barriers have caused Spencofootwear.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by,  13  blind and visually-impaired persons.  Amongst other access barriers experienced, Plaintiff was  unable to purchase the “Women’s Oasis Slides.”   42. As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that  Defendant’s website, Spencofootwear.com, contains access barriers causing the website to be  inaccessible, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.   43. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Spencofootwear.com.   44. Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including but not  limited to the following policies or practices:  (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.   45. Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.   46. Because of Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of,  the goods, benefits and services of Spencofootwear.com, Plaintiff and the class have suffered an  injury-in-fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of defendant’s  conduct.  47. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks  certification of the following nationwide class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal  14  Rules of Civil Procedure: “all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted  to access Spencofootwear.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods  and services offered by Spencofootwear.com, during the relevant statutory period.”   48. 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 Spencofootwear.com and as a result have been denied  access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Spencofootwear.com, during the  relevant statutory period.”   49. 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. Id.  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.   50. 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  Spencofootwear.com.  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 Spencofootwear.com.   51. There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including  without limitation, the following:  (a) Whether Spencofootwear.com is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;  (b) Whether Spencofootwear.com is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” under the laws of New York;  15  (c) Whether Defendant, through its website, Spencofootwear.com, 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, Spencofootwear.com, denies the full  and equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations  to people with visual disabilities in violation of the law of New York.   52. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class.  The class,  similar to the Plaintiff, is severely visually-impaired or otherwise blind, and claims Fourfoot has  violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access barriers on  their website, Spencofootwear.com, so it can be independently accessible to the class of people  who are legally blind.   53. 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.   54. 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.   55. 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  16  system by the filing of numerous similar suits by people with visual disabilities throughout the  United States.    56. References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and  each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  57. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   58. Title III of the American 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).    59. Spencofootwear.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation  within the definition of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7).     60. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates  Spencofootwear.com.   61. 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.   62. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful   17  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.   63. 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.”   64. 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 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.”   65. 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 business entities in making their websites accessible, including but not limited  to ensuring adequate prompting and accessible alt-text.  Incorporating the basic components to  make their website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s  business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.  18   66. 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 Fourfoot who are blind  have been denied full and equal access to Spencofootwear.com, 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.   67. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   68. 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 Spencofootwear.com in violation of Title III of the  Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   69. 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.   70. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA, and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   71. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   72. 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.  73. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.  19   74. 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.”.   75. Spencofootwear.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation  within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).     76. Defendant is subject to the New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates Spencofootwear.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law. §  292(1).   77. Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to Spencofootwear.com, causing Spencofootwear.com to be completely  inaccessible to the blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons the full and equal access to the  facilities, goods and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   78. Specifically, under N.Y. Exec. Law § 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.”   79. 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  20  fundamentally alter the nature of the facility, privilege, advantage or accommodation being  offered or would result in an undue burden.”   80. 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 business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited  to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed by using a  keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   81. 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.  Exec. Law § 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.   82. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   83. 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 Spencofootwear.com under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2) et  21  seq. and/or its implementing regulations.  Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to  engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members of the class will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   84. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the New York State  Human Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   85. Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties  and fines pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   86. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   87. 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.  88. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 87 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   89. Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.   90. 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 . . .”  22   91. 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.”   92. Spencofootwear.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation  within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).     93. Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates Spencofootwear.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law §  40-c(2).   94. Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update  or remove access barriers to Spencofootwear.com, causing Spencofootwear.com 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.   95. 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 business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited  to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed by using a  keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   96. 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  23  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 . . .”   97. Specifically, under N.Y. 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 competent jurisdiction in the county in which the defendant shall reside . . .”   98. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   99. 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 indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations, advantages,  facilities and privileges thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.  100. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per  instance, as well as civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40 et seq. for  each and every offense. 