(Declaratory Relief)  113. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 112 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.  114. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that Foco.com contains  access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods, services and  facilities of Foco.com, which Team Beans owns, operates and/or controls, fails to comply with  applicable laws including, but not limited to, Title III of the American with Disabilities Act, 42  U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8- 107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.  115. 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.  26  (Violation of New York City Human Rights Law,  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102, et seq.)  101. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 100 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.  102. 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.”  103. Foco.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(9).    104. Defendant is subject to City Law because it owns and operates Foco.com.   Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(1).  105. Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing  to update or remove access barriers to Foco.com, causing Foco.com 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.   Specifically, 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  24  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. Administrative Code § 8- 107(15)(a).  106. Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  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.  107. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.  108. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of  disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Foco.com under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 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 class will continue  to suffer irreparable harm.  109. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of City law and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.  25  110. 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.  111. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.  112. Pursuant to N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120(8) and § 8-126(a) and the  remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff prays for judgment  as set forth below.  (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. – Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)   (Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law  Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.))   21  (Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.))   25. Defendant, Team Beans, L.L.C., controls and operates Foco.com. in New York  State and throughout the United States.    26. Foco.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for online  sale.  The online store allows the user to browse sports and entertainment merchandise, make  purchases, and perform a variety of other functions.   27. Among the features offered by Foco.com are the following:  (a) Consumers may use the website to connect with Hale Groves on social media,  using such sites as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest;  (b) an online store, allowing customers to purchase sports and entertainment  merchandise bearing the logo of professional sports teams and entertainment brands; and  (c) learning about career opportunities, shipping and return policies, and about the  company, amongst other features.   28. This case arises out of Team Beans’ policy and practice of denying the blind  access to the goods and services offered by Foco.com.  Due to Team Beans’ failure and refusal to  remove access barriers to Foco.com, blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access  to Team Beans, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public  through Foco.com.   29. Team Beans denies the blind access to goods, services and information made  available through Foco.com by preventing them from freely navigating Foco.com.   30. Foco.com contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and  blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software.  These barriers are pervasive and  include, but are not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack  of navigation links, the lack of adequate prompting and labeling, the denial of keyboard access,  9  empty links that contain no text, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address,  and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   31. Alternative text (“Alt-text”) is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical  image on a website.  Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that a  screen-reader can speak the alternative text while sighted users see the picture.  Alt-text does not  change the visual presentation except that it appears as a text pop-up when the mouse moves over  the picture.  There are many important pictures on Foco.com that lack a text equivalent.  The lack  of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of  the graphics (screen-readers detect and vocalize alt-text to provide a description of the image to a  blind computer user).  As a result, Plaintiff and blind Foco.com customers are unable to determine  what is on the website, browse the website or investigate and/or make purchases.   32. Foco.com also lacks prompting information and accommodations necessary to  allow blind shoppers who use screen-readers to locate and accurately fill-out online forms.  On a  shopping site such as Foco.com, these forms include search fields to locate face masks products,  fields to select size, and fields used to fill-out personal information, including address and credit  card information.  Due to lack of adequate labeling, Plaintiff and blind customers cannot make  purchases or inquiries as to Defendant’s merchandise, nor can they enter their personal  identification and financial information with confidence and security.      33. Similarly, on Foco.com, blind customers are not aware if the desired products,  such as face masks, have been added to the shopping cart because the screen-reader does not  indicate the type of product.  Therefore, blind customers are essentially prevented from  purchasing any items on Foco.com.   34. Specifically, Plaintiff and the class of users of screen-reading software,  experienced the following problems on the Website:  10  Summary  Plaintiff was unable to purchase a face mask with any team logo or find the “Add to Cart” button.  In  addition to missing many accessibility features, some of the ones that they do have are not  implemented properly. For example, the skip navigation function is only announced after all of the  menu items so it defeats the purpose. A user needs this feature to skip the repeated menu content.  Homepage     Skip to Content link is announced after the menu items, which defeats the purpose. It must be  announced in the first 1-3 tab presses but it takes 20 Tab presses to hear it on this site    The cart icon is announced as “zero link”    A visible focus is not available for many elements    The navigation menu is announced twice     Keyboard-only and screen-reader users are unable to access the submenu items  Product Page    Users are not notified when they make a selection. Ex. Plaintiff could hear and select different  MLB teams but was not notified that it worked. Multiple visual indicators are provided to show  that the new team was successfully selected    All product images were unlabeled. Plaintiff heard a long sourcefile name for each instead of an  accessible title or description    The chevon element that expands to show additional teams is not announced so blind users will  not be aware of the 12 teams that are only available after you press this element    The Select Size element is not in the tabindex as required    The Size Chart link is announced but the new screen and content is not accessible. Instead,  elements behind the Size Chart page are announced so it appears that the link does not work  Therefore, Plaintiff and other blind customers are essentially prevented from purchasing any  items on foco.com.   35. Furthermore, Foco.com lacks accessible image maps.  An image map is a  function that combines multiple words and links into one single image.  Visual details on this  single image highlight different “hot spots” which, when clicked on, allow the user to jump to  many different destinations within the website.  For an image map to be accessible, it must  contain alt-text for the various “hot spots.”  The image maps on Foco.com’s menu page do not  contain adequate alt-text and are therefore inaccessible to Plaintiff and the other blind individuals  11  attempting to make a purchase.  When Plaintiff tried to access the menu link in order to make a  purchase, he was unable to access it completely.   36. Furthermore, Plaintiff is unable to locate the shopping cart because the  shopping cart form does not specify the purpose of the shopping cart.  As a result, blind  customers are denied access to the shopping cart.  Consequently, blind customers are  unsuccessful in adding products into their shopping carts and cannot checkout and are essentially  prevented from purchasing items on Foco.com.   37. Moreover, the lack of navigation links on Defendant’s website makes  attempting to navigate through Foco.com even more time consuming and confusing for Plaintiff  and blind consumers.   38. Foco.com requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction.  Yet, it is a  fundamental tenet of web accessibility that for a web page to be accessible to Plaintiff and blind  people, it must be possible for the user to interact with the page using only the keyboard.  Indeed,  Plaintiff and blind users cannot use a mouse because manipulating the mouse is a visual activity  of moving the mouse pointer from one visual spot on the page to another.  Thus, Foco.com’s  inaccessible design, which requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, denies Plaintiff  and blind customers the ability to independently navigate and/or make purchases on Foco.com.   39. Due to Foco.com’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and blind customers must in turn  spend time, energy, and/or money to make their purchases at traditional brick-and-mortar  retailers.  Some blind customers may require a driver to get to the stores or require assistance in  navigating the stores.  By contrast, if Foco.com was accessible, a blind person could  independently investigate products and make purchases via the Internet as sighted individuals  can and do.  According to WCAG 2.1 Guideline 2.4.1, a mechanism is necessary to bypass  blocks of content that are repeated on multiple webpages because requiring users to extensively  12  tab before reaching the main content is an unacceptable barrier to accessing the website.   Plaintiff must tab through every navigation bar option and footer on Defendant’s website in an  attempt to reach the desired service.  Thus, Foco.com’s inaccessible design, which requires the  use of a mouse to complete a transaction, denies Plaintiff and blind customers the ability to  independently make purchases on Foco.com.   40. Foco.com thus contains access barriers which deny the full and equal access  to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Foco.com and who would otherwise be able to fully and  equally enjoy the benefits and services of Foco.com in New York State and throughout the  United States.   41. Plaintiff, Pedro Martinez, has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase  on Foco.com, most recently on May 4, 2020, but was unable to do so independently because of  the many access barriers on Defendant’s website.  These access barriers have caused Foco.com  to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.   Amongst other access barriers experienced, Plaintiff was unable to purchase a New York Mets  logo face mask.   42. As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that  Defendant’s website, Foco.com, contains access barriers causing the website to be inaccessible,  and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons.   43. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Foco.com.   44. Defendant engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including but not  limited to the following policies or practices:  (a) constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to blind class  members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  13  (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.   45. Defendant utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.   46. Because of Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to, and enjoyment of,  the goods, benefits and services of Foco.com, Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in- fact which is concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of defendant’s conduct.  47. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks  certification of the following nationwide class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure: “all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted  to access Foco.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and  services offered by Foco.com, during the relevant statutory period.”   48. Plaintiff seeks certification of the following New York subclass pursuant to  Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and, alternatively, 23(b)(3): “all legally blind individuals in New  York State who have attempted to access Foco.com and as a result have been denied access to  the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Foco.com, during the relevant statutory period.”   49. There are hundreds of thousands of visually-impaired persons in New York  State.  There are approximately 8.1 million people in the United States who are visually- impaired. Id.  Thus, the persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is  impractical and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to  the Court.  14   50. This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an   inaccessible website denying blind persons access to the goods and services of Foco.com.  Due  to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to remove access barriers, blind persons have been  and are being denied full and equal access to independently browse, select and shop on  Foco.com.   51. There are common questions of law and fact common to the class, including  without limitation, the following:  (a) Whether Foco.com is a “public accommodation” under the ADA;  (b) Whether Foco.com is a “place or provider of public accommodation” under  the laws of New York;  (c) Whether Defendant, through its website, Foco.com, denies the full and equal  enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people  with visual disabilities in violation of the ADA; and  (d) Whether Defendant, through its website, Foco.com, denies the full and equal  enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people  with visual disabilities in violation of the law of New York.   52. The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class.  The class,  similar to the Plaintiff, is severely visually-impaired or otherwise blind, and claims Team Beans  has violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or remove access  barriers on their website, Foco.com, so it can be independently accessible to the class of people  who are legally blind.   53. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Class because Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent and  experienced in complex class action litigation, and because Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic  15  to the members of the class.  Class certification of the claims is appropriate pursuant to 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.   54. Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)  because questions of law and fact common to Class members clearly 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.   55. Judicial economy will be served by maintenance of 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.    56. References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and  each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  57. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   58. Title III of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)  provides that “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.”  Title III also prohibits an entity from “[u]tilizing standards or  16  criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of  disability.”  42 U.S.C. § 12181(b)(2)(D)(I).    59. Foco.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7).     60. Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because it owns and operates  Foco.com.   61. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(I), it is unlawful   discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities the  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  or accommodations of an entity.   62. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful   discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of 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.   63. Specifically, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(II),  unlawful discrimination 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.”   64. In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III),  unlawful discrimination also includes, among other things, “a failure to take such steps as may  be necessary to ensure that no individual with disability is excluded, denied services, segregated  17  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.”   65. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their websites accessible, including but not limited  to ensuring adequate prompting and accessible alt-text.  Incorporating the basic components to  make their website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s  business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   66. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.  § 12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder.  Patrons of Team Beans who are  blind have been denied full and equal access to Foco.com, have not been provided services that  are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and/or have been provided services that are  inferior to the services provided to non-disabled patrons.   67. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   68. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of  disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Foco.com in violation of Title III of the Americans with  Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.  18   69. Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these  unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass will continue to  suffer irreparable harm.   70. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA, and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   71. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   72. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  73. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   74. 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.”.   75. Foco.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).     76. Defendant is subject to the New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates Foco.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law. § 292(1).   77. Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to Foco.com, causing Foco.com to be completely inaccessible to the  19  blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons the full and equal access to the facilities, goods  and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   78. Specifically, under N.Y. Exec. Law § 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.”   79. In addition, 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.”   8   80. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited  to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed by using a  keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   81. Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  class on the basis of a disability in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y.  Exec. Law § 296(2) in that Defendant has:  20  (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.   82. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   83. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of  disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Foco.com under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2) et seq. and/or  its implementing regulations.  Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in  these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members of the class will continue to suffer irreparable  harm.   84. The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the New York State  Human Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   85. Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties  and fines pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   86. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   87. Pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  88. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in paragraphs 1 through 87 of this Complaint as though set forth at length herein.   89. Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.   90. 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 . . .”   91. 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.”   92. Foco.com is a sales establishment and public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).     93. Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates Foco.com.  Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   94. Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update  or remove access barriers to Foco.com, causing Foco.com to be completely inaccessible to the  22  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.   95. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually-impaired.  These guidelines have been  followed by other business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited  to: adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed by using a  keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   96. In addition, 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 . . .”   97. Specifically, under N.Y. 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 . . .”   98. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct.  These violations are ongoing.   99. As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class on the basis of disability are  23  being directly indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations, advantages,  facilities and privileges thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.  100. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per  instance, as well as civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40 et seq. for  each and every offense. 