22.  Defendants offer the commercial website, WWW.ELLIMAN.COM, to the  public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the  services which Defendants offers in connection with their physical locations. The   services offered by Defendants include, but are not limited to the following, which allow  consumers to: find information about real estate sales offices locations and hours of  operation, information about real estate for sale or rental and information about various  neighborhoods.   23.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendants’ policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendants’  website, and to therefore specifically deny the services that are offered and are heavily  integrated with Defendants’ real estate sales offices. Due to Defendants’ failure and  refusal to remove access barriers to its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons  have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendants’ real estate sales offices  and the numerous services and benefits offered to the public through the Website.   24.  Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a  computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff is, however, a  proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited  the Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   27.  Due to the inaccessibility of Defendants’ Website, blind and visually- impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally  use or enjoy the facilities and services Defendants offers to the public on their Website.  The access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal  access in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Website.    29.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   30.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of  the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently unusable by  blind and visually-impaired people.   31.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would  provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website,  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have engaged in acts of intentional discrimination,  including, but not limited to, the following policies or practices:  a.  Constructing and maintaining a website that is inaccessible to  visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff;  b.  Failure to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive so as to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including  Plaintiff; and,  c.  Failing to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind and visually-impaired consumers, such as  Plaintiff, as a member of a protected class.   33.  The ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks  in this action. In relevant part, the ADA requires:  In the case of violations of . . . this title, injunctive relief shall include an order to  alter facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable by  individuals with disabilities . . . Where appropriate, injunctive relief shall also  include requiring the . . . modification of a policy . . .  42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   34.  Because Defendants’ Website have never been equally accessible, and  because Defendants lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause their  Website to become and remain accessible, Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and  seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to retain a qualified consultant  acceptable to Plaintiff (“Agreed Upon Consultant”) to assist Defendants to comply with  WCAG 2.0 guidelines for Defendants’ Website. The Website must be accessible for  individuals with disabilities who use computers, laptops, tablets and smart phones.  Plaintiff seeks that this permanent injunction require Defendants to cooperate with the  Agreed Upon Consultant to:  a.  Train Defendants’ employees and agents who develop the Website  on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  b.  Regularly check the accessibility of the Website under the WCAG   35.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired people could independently view service items, locate Defendants’ real  estate sales offices and hours of operation, shop for and otherwise research related  services available via the Website such as real estate for sale or rental information.   36.  Although Defendants may currently have centralized policies regarding  maintaining and operating its Website, Defendants lacks a plan and policy reasonably  calculated to make them fully and equally accessible to, and independently usable by,  blind and other visually-impaired consumers.   37.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  38.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  certify a nationwide class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind  individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendants’ Website and  as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of services offered in  Defendants’ physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   40.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:  a.  Whether Defendants’ Website is a “public accommodation” under  the ADA;   b.  Whether Defendants’ Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  c.  Whether Defendants’ Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with visual  disabilities, violating the ADA; and  d.  Whether Defendants’ Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with visual  disabilities, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   41.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly to the  Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendants  have violated the ADA, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access  barriers on their Website so it can be independently accessible to the Class.   43.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions common to Class Members 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.   44.  Judicial economy will be served by maintaining 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.  45.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   46.  Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,  provides:  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.  42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).   47.  Defendants’ real estate sales offices are public accommodations within the  definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Defendants’ Website is a  service, privilege, or advantage of Defendants’ real estate sales offices. The Website is a  service that is heavily integrated with these locations and is a gateway thereto.   49.  Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful  discrimination to deny 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. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).   50.  Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, unlawful discrimination  also 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; and 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.  42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii).   52.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  53.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   54.  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.”   55.  Defendants’ physical locations are located in State of New York and  throughout the United States and constitute public accommodations within the definition  of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendants’ Website is a service, privilege or advantage of  Defendants. Defendants’ Website is a service that is heavily integrated with these  physical locations and is a gateway thereto.   56.  Defendants are subject to New York Human Rights Law because they  own and operate their physical locations and Website. Defendants are a person within the  meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   58.  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 being offered or  would result in an undue burden".   59.  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.”   61.  Defendants’ actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the class on the basis of a disability in violation of the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law §  296(2) in that Defendants have:  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.   62.  Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   63.  Defendants discriminate, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York Sub-Class Members on the basis of disability in the full  and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Defendants’ Website and their physical  locations under § 296(2) et seq. and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court  enjoins Defendants from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and  the Sub-Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   64.  Defendants’ actions 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.   66.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   67.  Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  68.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   69.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41.   70.  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 . . .”   72.  Defendants’ New York City physical locations are public accommodations  within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2). Defendants’ Website is a  service, privilege or advantage of Defendants and their Website is a service that is  heavily integrated with these establishments and is a gateway thereto.   73.  Defendants are subject to New York Civil Rights Law because they own  and operate its physical locations and Website. Defendants are a person within the  meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   74.  Defendants are violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to  update or remove access barriers to their Website, causing its Website and the services  integrated with Defendants’ physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities and services  that Defendants make available to the non-disabled public.   75.  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 . . .”   77.  Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   78.  Defendants discriminate, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York Sub-Class Members 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.   79.  Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per  instance, as well as civil penalties and fines under N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for each  and every offense.  80.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   81.  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.”   83.  Defendants are subject to NYCHRL because they own and operate their  physical locations in the City of New York and their Website, making them a person  within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   84.  Defendants are violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in  refusing to update or remove access barriers to their Website, causing their Website and  the services integrated with their physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the  blind. This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities and  services that Defendants make available to the non-disabled public.   85.  Defendants are 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.  Admin. Code § 8-107(15)(a).   87.  Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   88.  As such, Defendants 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 services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of its Website and its establishments  under § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins  Defendants from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members  of the class will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   89.  Defendants’ actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and  therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   90.  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.   91.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   92.  Under 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.  94.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant deny, that their Website  contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the services  and facilities of its Website and by extension its physical locations, which Defendants  own, operate and control and 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. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting  discrimination against the blind.   95.  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.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendants’ Barriers on Their Website   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATES CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  