1. Whether Defendant’s employees and agents such as managers, bell staff, doormen,  concierges, transportation providers, security personnel, front desk and other staff are  trained to assist blind and vision-impaired guests with basic needs such as: completing  the hotel registration; learning about and completing service requests like laundry, dry  cleaning, valet, shipping, room service, etc.; reviewing the hotel bill and charges;  counting and identifying currency; using a signature guide or template in conjunction  with their credit card; using a passcard-type of key; luggage rooms, business center, gym  or health club, lounge facilities, rest rooms; orienting guests to hotel and guest room  layouts; location of fire alarms, emergency exits and equipment; heating and air  conditioning controls; TV remote controls;  message retrieval system; automated wake- up systems; and safe deposit box.   2. Whether Defendant accepts guide dogs and, if so, if there are any charges associated with  the guide dogs, their policies with respect to guide dogs and if there are any rest areas for  guide dogs.   26.  Defendant owns and operates a hotel in the City of New York as well as in the  rest of the United States. Many of these locations also offer dining and entertainment options,  including on-site restaurants, room service and lobby lounges.   27.  Defendant’s Website offers features to the public that should allow all consumers  to access the facilities and services that it offers about their hotels. The Website is heavily  integrated with their hotels, serving as their gateway.   28.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, using Defendant’s Website access to  information through their reservation system relating to the availability of ADA compliant rooms  and handicap accessible features of the hotel, and to therefore specifically deny the goods and  services that are offered and integrated with Defendant’s hotels. Due to Defendant’s failure and  refusal to add information through their reservation system relating to its accessibility for  visually-impaired persons on their Website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been  and are still being denied equal access to Defendant’s hotels and the numerous goods, services,  and benefits offered to the public at Defendant’s hotels.   3. Whether the hotels provide a braille and/or large print menu for restaurants and/or room  service and, in the alternative, if they have trained staff to read the menu to blind or  vision-impaired guests.   30.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, last occurring in March, 2019, Plaintiff  was not able to determine from the reservation system on the Website what ADA compliant  features, if any, the hotels offer and whether the guest rooms have handicap accessible facilities  or communications equipment in the guest rooms suitable to blind or visually-impaired persons.   As a result, Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services  offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full  enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s physical locations in New York  City and New York State by being unable to learn any information about the accessibility  features of the hotels or its guest rooms.  Defendant Must Include Information Relating to ADA Compliant Rooms  and Handicap Accessibility Features Through Its Website Reservation System   32.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website reservation system have deterred  Plaintiff from visiting Defendant’s physical locations, and enjoying them equal to sighted  individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find information on the Website reservation system  relating to the accessibility of the hotels and guest rooms for blind and visually-impaired people  and other important information, preventing Plaintiff from reserving a room at the hotels, staying  at the hotel and using the facilities of the hotel including restaurants and attending events.   33.  If the hotels and the Website reservation system were equally accessible to all,  Plaintiff could independently navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted  individuals do.   34.  Through visiting the Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the lack of  information on accessibility features available on the reservation system on the Website that  result in making the services and facilities of the hotel inaccessible and independently unusable  by blind and visually-impaired people.   35.  Because simple compliance with the provisions of the ADA relating to providing  information about accessibility features of the hotels and the guest rooms on its Website  reservation system would provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal  access to the services and facilities at Defendant’s hotels, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has  engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including, but not limited to, the failure to provide  information on its Website reservation system sufficient to advise that the hotels are fully ADA  compliant, and for each accessible guest room, to  specify the room type, the type of accessible  facility in the room, and the communications features in the room.   37.  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).   4. Whether or not emergency exit signs are compliant with ADAAG1 requirements and  emergency evacuation plans and information are provided in braille and large print.   40.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding  maintaining and operating its Website and the inclusion of information on the Website,  Defendant lacks a plan and policy reasonably calculated to include the ADA-required  information on the Website reservation system to make such information fully and equally  accessible to, and independently usable by, blind and other visually-impaired consumers.    41.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining the Website and has generated significant revenue from the Website.  These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of including the information required  under the ADA regulations on the Website reservation system in order to make its facilities and  guest rooms equally accessible to visually impaired customers.    42.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will  continue to be unable to independently use the Website reservation system to obtain information  relating to ADA accessibility of the hotels and their guest rooms, violating their rights.  43.  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 to obtain the ADA-required  accessibility information and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods  and services offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   45.  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 to obtain the ADA- required information and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods  and services offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.    46.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website reservation system contains the information  on accessibility required under the ADA regulations;   b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  c.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment of its  goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with visual  disabilities, violating the ADA; and  d.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment of its  goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with visual  disabilities, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   48.  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.   49.  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 their litigation.   5. Whether or not all accessible signage complies with the requirements of the ADAAG.   50.  Judicial economy will be served by maintaining their 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.  51.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   53.  Defendant’s hotels are places of public accommodation within the definition of  Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(A). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege, or  advantage of Defendant’s hotels. The Website is a service that is integrated with the Defendant’s  hotels and is a gateway thereto.   54.  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).   55.  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).   56.  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).   58.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  59.  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.   60.  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.”   62.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. The Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   63.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to include the  ADA-required information on the Website reservation system, causing the 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.   64.  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."   65.  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.”   67.  Defendant’s 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  Defendant has:  a.  constructed and maintained a website that does not contain the ADA- required information on its reservation system making their hotels inaccessible to blind class  members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  b.  failed to take actions to correct the lack of the ADA-required information  in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   68.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   69.  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 their 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 Sub-Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable  harm.   7. Whether or not the hotels have removed or protected protruding objects which protrude  more than 4” into walkways and hallways such as drinking fountains, fire extinguishers,  and planters and if they provide cane detectable warnings for the underside of stairways.   70.  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.   72.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   73.  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.  74.  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.   75.  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.”   76.  Defendant’s hotels are places of public accommodation within the definition of  N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and the Website is a service that is integrated with their  establishments.   77.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates physical locations  in the City of New York and the Website, making the Defendant a person within the meaning of  N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   79.  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. Admin. Code § 8-107(15)(a).   8. Whether or not the guest rooms contain tactile and large print thermostat controls and  talking/large print clocks.   80.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the 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 does not contain the ADA- required information on its reservation system making their hotels inaccessible to blind class  members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  b.  failed to take actions to correct the lack of the ADA-required information  in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   81.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   83.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   84.  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 as well as  punitive damages pursuant to § 8-502.   85.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   86.  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.  87.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and New York State and City Sub- Classes Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   88.  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 does not  contain the ADA-required information on its reservation system denying blind customers the full  and equal access to the goods, services and facilities of the Website and by extension their  physical locations, which Defendant owns, operates and 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. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq.  prohibiting discrimination against the blind.   9. Whether or not signage in the hotel can be easily located by blind and vision-impaired  persons with 2” minimum height raised letters and braille characters centered at 60”  above the finished floor to indicate floor numbers, rest rooms, lobby, vending and ice  machines and all other hotel facilities and amenities.   b.  Regularly check the accessibility of the Website and its reservation system  under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;   c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons to  ensure that Defendant’s Website and the reservation system complies under the WCAG 2.0  guidelines; and  d.  Regularly check the hotels and the guest rooms to ensure that the  accessibility features that they describe on its website reservation system are in fact available and  properly maintained.   DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Website and Compliance with  Requirement to Describe Accessibility Features   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  