(Declaratory Relief)   (Disability Discrimination in Violations of NYC Human Rights Law § 8-107(4))  (Injunctive Relief and Damages on Behalf of Plaintiffs)   (Failure to Reasonably Accommodate in violation of NYC Human Rights Law § 8-107(15))   (Injunctive Relief and Damages on Behalf of Plaintiffs)   (Violations of New York State Human Rights Law)  (Injunctive Relief and Damages on Behalf of Plaintiffs)   (Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act)  (Injunctive Relief)   (Violations of New York State Civil Rights Law)  (Statutory Damages on Behalf of Plaintiffs)   27.  Plaintiff is paralyzed and cannot walk. As a result, he uses a wheelchair for mobility.   28.  Defendant 207TH STREET REALTIES, LLC owns or leases the commercial property  which houses the public accommodation named Guadalupe Restaurant located at 597 West 207th  Street, New York, NY 10034 (hereinafter ‘public accommodation’).   29.  Upon information and belief, Defendant ALTAGRACIA I. ABREU owns or operates the  public accommodation named Guadalupe Restaurant located at 597 West 207th Street, New  York, NY 10034.   30.  Since 1992, Defendants public accommodation has undergone several alterations to  the areas which affects or could affect access to or usability of its place of public  accommodation.     31.  In 2004, Defendant 207TH STREET REALTIES, LLC submitted a building permit  application to install a new handicap accessible bathroom.   32.  In the 3 years prior to this action being filed, Plaintiff had attempted to enter Defendants'  public accommodation, however was unable to enter because of an unlawful architectural barrier.   35.  Plaintiff is deterred from visiting Defendants’ public accommodation because of the  existing accessibility barriers.    36.  Plaintiff has the intention to return to Defendants’ public accommodation once it  becomes readily accessible to and usable.   37.  The removal of existing architectural barriers is readily achievable.    38.  To date, Defendants have failed to remove the architectural barriers.  39.  Defendants’ public accommodation named Guadalupe Restaurant located at 597 West  207th Street, New York, NY 10034 is a public accommodation within the meaning of Title III  of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.   40.  Defendants have failed to make adequate accommodations and modifications to its  public accommodation named Guadalupe Restaurant located at 597 West 207th Street, New  York, NY 10034.   41.  Defendants have failed to remove all architectural barriers that are structural in nature  in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv).   42.  There exist readily achievable modifications which would make Defendants' public  accommodation accessible and readily usable by Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.   43.  Defendants failed to make the necessary readily achievable modifications to its public  accommodation.   44.  It is not impossible for Defendants to remove the architectural barriers which exist at  its public accommodation.   46.  It is not structurally impracticable for Defendants’ public accommodation to be  accessible.   47.  Defendants failed to alter its public accommodation to the maximum extent feasible in  violation of 42 U.S. Code § 12183(a)(2).   48.  Defendants’ public accommodation is not fully accessible to, or readily useable by  individuals with disabilities.   49.  Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, on  the basis of disability, in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,  privileges, advantages, or accommodations of its public accommodation in violation of 42 U.S.  Code § 12182(a).   50.  Defendants have subjected Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, on the basis of  disability, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  or accommodations of Defendants in violation of 42 U.S. Code § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   51.  Defendants have not afforded Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, on the basis  of disability, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the  opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or  accommodation that is equal to that afforded to other individuals in violation of 42 U.S. Code §  12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).   53.  Defendants have not afforded plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, the goods,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations in the most integrated setting  appropriate in violation of 42 U.S. Code § 12182(b)(1)(B).   54.  Defendants have denied Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, the opportunity to  participate in such program or activities that is not separate or different in violation 42 U.S.  Code § 12182(b)(1)(C).   55.  Defendants have imposed or applied an eligibility criteria that screened out or tended to  screen out Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, from fully and equally enjoying any goods,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered in violation of 42  U.S. Code § 12182(b)(2)(A)(i).   56.  Defendants have failed to make reasonable modifications in their policies, practices, or  procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities,  privileges, advantages, or accommodations to Plaintiff in violation of 42 U.S. Code §  12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).   57.  Defendants should have achieved accessibility by January 26, 1992.    58.  The barriers to access Defendants’ public accommodation continue to exist.   59.  Reasonable accommodations exist which do not impose an undue hardship on the  operation of the Defendants’ program or activity.   61.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all of the allegations set forth in this  Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   62.  Defendants’ public accommodation named Guadalupe Restaurant located at 597 West  207th Street, New York, NY 10034 is a public accommodation within the meaning of New  York State Human Rights Law § 292(9).   63.  Defendants have not provided Plaintiff and others similarly situated with evenhanded  treatment in violation of New York State Human Rights Law § 296.   64.  Defendants’ direct or indirect unevenhanded treatment of Plaintiff and others similarly  situated is demonstrated when he was segregated from all other customers.    65.  Defendants have, because of Plaintiff’s disability, directly or indirectly, refused, withheld  from or denied Plaintiff any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges of their  public accommodation.     66.  Defendants have demonstrated that the patronage or custom thereat of Plaintiff and  others similarly situated, is unwelcome, objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited.   67.  Defendants and its agents discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of New York  State Human Rights Law § 296.   68.  Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff  by creating, fostering, and otherwise failing to  prevent or remedy the discrimination against Plaintiff, in violation of New York State Human  Rights Law § 296.   70.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all of the allegations set forth in this  Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   71.  On the basis of Plaintiff’s disability, Defendants have violated his Civil Rights.   72.  Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to recover the penalty prescribed by Civil Rights  Law § 40-c and 40-d, in the amount of $500 for each and every violation.   73.  Pursuant to NY Civil Rights law, Defendants are guilty of a class A misdemeanor.   74.  Notice of the action has been served upon the Attorney-General as required by Civil  Rights Law § 40-d.  75.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all of the allegations set forth in this  Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   76.  Defendants’ public accommodation named Guadalupe Restaurant located at 597 West  207th Street, New York, NY 10034 is a place or provider of public accommodation within the  meaning of New York City Administrative Code § 8-102(9).   78.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, Defendants have unlawfully discriminated  against Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.   79.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, the owner, lessee, proprietor,  manager,  agent and employee of defendants' public accommodation, have, because of the actual or  perceived disability of the Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, refused, withheld from and denied  Plaintiff the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.   80.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, on the basis of Plaintiff’s disability,  Defendants have demonstrated that the patronage or custom of Plaintiff and all others similarly  situated, is unwelcome, objectionable, and not acceptable.   81.   Pursuant to New York City Human Rights Law § 8-502, notice of this action has been  served upon New York City's Commission on Human Rights.   82.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants disability discrimination in violation  of the New York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer  mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, humiliation,  stress, embarrassment, anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain  and suffering.  83.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all of the allegations set forth in this  Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   85.  Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff reasonable accommodations and modifications  in violation of NYC Human Rights Law 8-107(15).   86.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code 8-102(4) and (18), and 8-107(4) and 8- 107(15), Defendants have not reasonably accommodated Plaintiff and others similarly situated.   87.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, Defendants have unlawfully discriminated  against Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.   88.  Reasonable accommodations and modifications are necessary to enable Plaintiff and all  others similarly situated the ability to enjoy the non-restricted access and use of the public  accommodation in question.   89.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager,  agent and employee of defendants' public accommodation, have, because of the actual or  perceived disability of the Plaintiff, directly or indirectly, refused, withheld from and denied  Plaintiff the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.   90.  In violation of New York City Admin. Code, Defendants have demonstrated that,  because of Plaintiff's disability, the patronage or custom of Plaintiff and all others similarly  situated, is unwelcome, objectionable, and not acceptable.   91.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants disability discrimination in violation  of the New York City Human Rights Law, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer  mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, humiliation,  stress, embarrassment, anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence, and emotional pain  and suffering.  93.  Plaintiff is entitled to a declaratory judgment concerning the violations committed by  Defendant specifying the rights of Plaintiff and other persons similarly situated as to the  policies, practices, procedures, facilities, goods and services provided by Defendant. 