2.0 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons  to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and,   d.  Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems and require that any third party vendors who participate on its Website to be fully  accessible to the disabled by conforming with WCAG 2.0 criteria.   21.  Defendant offers the commercial website, WWW.MANHATTAN.EDU, to  the public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the  services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations. The services  offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to the following, which allow consumers  to find information about: school location and hours, curriculum and programs of  instruction, academic calendars, course and admission prerequisites, cost of tuition,  available financial aid, career services, accreditation, faculty, campus security, transfer  credits, textbooks, and other vital information needed by prospective students in order to  make an informed decision about the Defendant’s school.   23.  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.   24.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, the last occurring in September  2017, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal  access to the facilities and services offered to the public and made available to the public;  and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities and services of the Website, as  well as to the facilities and services of Defendant’s physical location in New York by being  unable to learn more information about: school location and hours, curriculum and  programs of instruction, academic calendars, course and admission prerequisites, cost of  tuition, available financial aid, career services, accreditation, faculty, campus security,  transfer credits, textbooks, and other vital information needed by prospective students in  order to make an informed decision about the Defendant’s school.   27.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s school and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals because:  Plaintiff was unable to find information about: school location and hours, curriculum and  programs of instruction, academic calendars, course and admission prerequisites, cost of  tuition, available financial aid, career services, accreditation, faculty, campus security,  transfer credits, textbooks, and other vital information needed by prospective students in  order to make an informed decision about the Defendant’s school. Plaintiff intends to visit  Defendant's school in the near future if he could access their website.   28.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   29.  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.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   32.  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.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired people could independently view service items, locate Defendant’s  school, shop for and otherwise research related services available via the Website such as  curriculum, financial aids, campus tours and other vital information.   35.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding  maintaining and operating its Website, Defendant 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.    36.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining its Website and has generated significant  revenue from the Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated  cost of making their Website equally accessible to visually impaired  customers.    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 Defendant’s Website and as  a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of services offered in Defendant’s  physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory period.   39.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  certify a New York State subclass under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind  individuals in the State of New York who have attempted to access Defendant’s Website  and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of services offered in  Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory period.    40.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  certify a New York City subclass under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2):  all legally blind individuals in the City of New York who have attempted to  access Defendant’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the  equal enjoyment of services offered in Defendant’s physical locations and  on its website, during the relevant statutory period.    42.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly to the  Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has  violated the ADA, RA, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access  barriers on its Website so it can be independently accessible to the Class.   43.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  Class Members 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 Class Members. Class certification of the claims is appropriate under  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.   44.  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.   46.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   47.  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).   48.  Defendant’s school is a public accommodation within the definition of Title  III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege, or  advantage of Defendant’s school. 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 the opportunity to participate in or  benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of  an entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   51.  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.  The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, and the  regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is a member of a protected class of  persons under the ADA, has a physical disability that substantially limits the major life  activity of sight within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A)-(2)(A). Furthermore,  Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Website, has not been provided  services that are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and has been provided  services that are inferior to the services provided to non-disabled persons. Defendant has  failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct. These  violations are ongoing.   53.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  54.  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.   55.  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.”   56.  Defendant’s physical location is located in State of New York and  constitutes a public accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).  Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant. Defendant’s  Website is a service that is heavily integrated with these physical locations and is a gateway  thereto.   57.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   58.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with  Defendant’s physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities and services that  Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   60.  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.  Readily available, well-established guidelines exist on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have been  followed by other large business entities and government agencies in making their website  accessible, including but not limited to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all  functions can be performed using a keyboard. Incorporating the basic components to make  its Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business  nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   63.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   64.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York State 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 Defendant’s Website and its physical locations  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 the State  Sub-Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   65.  Defendant’s 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 compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties  and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   67.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   68.  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.  69.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   70.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41.   71.  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.  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.”   74.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   75.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update  or remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated  with Defendant’s physical locations 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.   76.  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.  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 competent jurisdiction in the county in which the defendant shall reside . .  .”   78.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   80.  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.  81.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    82.  29 U.S.C. § 794(a) provides “No otherwise qualified individual with a  disability in the United States … shall, solely by reason of her or his  disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be  subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal  financial assistance….”     83.  29 U.S.C. § 794(b) defines “program or activity” as “all operations  of…(2)(A) a college, university, or other postsecondary institution, or a  public system of education; or (B) a local educational agency…, system of  career and technical education, or other school system.”    84.  Defendant receives Federal financial assistance.   85.  Defendant’s operations, including its website, is a program or activity  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794.    87.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and the 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 Defendant’s Website  and its physical locations under the RA and/or its implementing regulations.  Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these  unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the Class Members will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   88.  Defendant’s violations of Sec. 504 of the RA were intentional or with  deliberate indifference.   89.  As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiff is entitled to damages from  the Defendant.   90.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York City Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   91.  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.”   92.  Defendant’s locations are public accommodations within the definition of  N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website is a service that is integrated with its  establishments.   93.  Defendants are subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its  physical locations in the City of New York and its Website, making it a person within the  meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   94.  Defendants are violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in  refusing to update or remove access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the  services integrated with its physical locations 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.   96.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  City Sub-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  c.  failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   97.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   98.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed City Sub-class on the basis of  disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, 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  Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members  of the City Sub-class will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE REHABILITATION ACT of 1973, §504  