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.   25.  Defendant owns and operates a hotel in the City of New York. This location  offers dining and entertainment options, including on-site restaurants, room service and lobby  lounges.   26.  Defendant’s Website offers features to the public that should allow all consumers  to access the facilities and services that it offers at their hotel. The Website is heavily integrated  with their hotel, serving as their gateway.   28.  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 Defendant’s  Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   29.  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 hotel offers 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 location in New York  City by being unable to learn any information about the accessibility features of the hotel or its  guest rooms.  Defendant Must Include Information Relating to ADA Compliant Rooms  and Handicap Accessibility Features Through Its Website Reservation System   31.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website reservation system have deterred  Plaintiff from visiting Defendant’s physical location, 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 hotel and guest rooms for blind and visually-impaired people  and other important information, preventing Plaintiff from reserving a room at the hotel, staying  at the hotel and using the facilities of the hotel including restaurants and attending events.   32.  If the hotel 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.   33.  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.  Defendant therefore use standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.   36.  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).   38.  If the ADA-required information is included on the Website reservation system,  Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually-impaired people could independently determine  through use of the Website if Defendant’s hotel and guest rooms are ADA compliant and if the  facilities described relating the facilities and communications equipment in guest rooms are  acceptable to the Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually-impaired people   39.  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.    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.  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.    41.  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 hotel and their guest rooms, violating their rights.  43.  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 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 location, during the relevant statutory period.    44.  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 location, during the relevant statutory period.    46.  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 have violated the ADA,  NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to include the ADA-required information on the Website  reservation system so individuals with disabilities can independently assess if Defendant’s hotel  or guest rooms meet the accessibility needs of the Plaintiff and the Class.   47.  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.   48.  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.   49.  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.  5. Whether or not all accessible signage complies with the requirements of the ADAAG.   51.  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).   52.  Defendant’s hotel is a place 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 hotel. The Website is a service that is integrated with the Defendant’s  hotel and is a gateway thereto.   53.  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).   54.  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.  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 ADA-required information on the Website reservation system, and,  as a result, 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 have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   57.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  58.  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.   6. Whether or not the stairs, escalators and elevators comply with ADAAG standards, such  as braille for floor numbers in the elevator and a verbal annunciator for each floor.    60.  Defendant’s physical hotel is located in the State of New York and constitute a  place of 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 this physical location and is a gateway thereto.   61.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical location and Website. The Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   62.  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 location 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.   63.  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.  Readily available, well-established guidelines exist on the Internet for including  the ADA-required information on websites making such websites accessible to the blind and  visually impaired. Incorporating the basic components to make the Website reservation system  include the ADA-required information would neither fundamentally alter the nature of  Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   66.  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 hotel 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.   67.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   69.  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.   7. Whether or not the hotel has 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.  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.   71.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   72.  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.  73.  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.   74.  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.”   75.  Defendant’s hotel is a place 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 violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing to  update the Website and remove access barriers to its hotel by failing to include the ADA- required information on its reservation system, causing the services integrated with their physical  location to be completely inaccessible to the blind. The inaccessibility denies blind patrons full  and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that Defendant makes available to the non- disabled public.   78.  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).   79.  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 hotel 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.   8. Whether or not the guest rooms contain tactile and large print thermostat controls and  talking/large print clocks.   80.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   82.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   83.  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.   84.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   85.  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.  86.  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.  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   Defendant’s Website and Compliance with  Requirement to Describe Accessibility Features   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  