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.   27.  Defendant  offers  the  commercial  website,  WWW.DNRBOATWORLD.COM, to the public. The website offers features which  should allow all consumers to access the products and services which Defendant offers in  connection with their physical locations. The products and services offered by Defendant  include, but are not limited to the following, and the Defendant’s website allows consumers  to find information about: showroom location and hours, products and/or services offered  for sale, technical specifications of its products, prices, warranties, awards and other vital  information needed by prospective consumers in order to make informed decisions about  the Defendant’s products and/or services.   29.  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.   30.  Plaintiff, BRAULIO THORNE, attended the boat fair at Javits during its  sales exhibition January 23-27, 2019 in order to obtain information from the personal boat,  watercraft and related accessories and/or services sellers presenting and marketing at the  fair, including the Defendant.   31.  Soon after attending the Javits fair, the Plaintiff attempted to access the  Defendant’s website in order to obtain additional information about the Defendant’s  products and services but was thwarted in his efforts to do so due to the inaccessibility of  the Defendant’s website as set forth herein.   34.  By its failure to provide a website that is accessible to the blind or vision   impaired, Defendant intentionally violated federal, state and city statutes and regulations  designed to protect those members of society who are in need of protection by those various  laws.  Defendant Must Remove Barriers To Its Website    35.  Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant’s Website, blind and visually- impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally  use or enjoy the facilities and services Defendant offers to the public on its 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.    36.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s physical locations and enjoying the services offered by the Defendant  equal to sighted individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find information about:  showroom location and hours, products and/or services offered for sale, technical  specifications of its products, prices, warranties, awards and other vital information needed  by prospective consumers in order to make informed decisions about the Defendant’s  products and services. Plaintiff intends to visit Defendant's physical showrooms in the near  future if he could access their website.   38.  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.   39.  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 Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination or with deliberate  indifference, 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.   40.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   42.  Because Defendant’s Website has never been equally accessible, and  because Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its  Website to become and remain accessible, Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and  seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant  acceptable to Plaintiff (“Agreed Upon Consultant”) to assist Defendant to comply with  WCAG 2.0 guidelines for Defendant’s Website. The Website must be accessible for  individuals with disabilities who use computers, laptops, tablets and smart phones. Plaintiff  seeks that this permanent injunction requires Defendant to cooperate with the Agreed Upon  Consultant to:  a.  Train Defendant’s 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   44.  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.    45.  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.    46.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  47.  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 products and services offered  in Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory period.   49.  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 products and services  offered in Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory  period.    50.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” under  the ADA;   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 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 services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with visual  disabilities, violating the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL.   52.  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.   53.  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.   54.  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.  55.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   57.  Defendant’s showrooms and sales exhibits at Javits are public  accommodations 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 physical sales  locations. The Website is a service that is heavily integrated with these locations and is a  gateway thereto.   58.  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).   59.  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).   61.  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.   62.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  63.  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.   64.  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.”   66.  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).   67.  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.   68.  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".   70.  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.   71.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  State Sub-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 is inaccessible to blind  class members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  b.  constructed and maintained a website that is not sufficiently  intuitive and/or obvious that it 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.   72.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   74.  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.   75.  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.   76.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   77.  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.  78.  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.   79.  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.”   81.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its physical  sales 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).   82.  Defendant is 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 sales 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.   83.  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).   85.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   86.  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.   87.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   88.  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(a).   89.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   90.  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.  91.  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.   93.  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 Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  