(Declaratory Relief)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  109. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.  110.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that  hotelbelleclaire.com contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access  to the goods, services and facilities of hotelbelleclaire.com and by extension Hotel Belleclaire,  which Belleclaire Hotel owns, operates, and/or 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. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq.  prohibiting discrimination against the blind.  111.  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.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  (Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq. — Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   (Violation of New York City Human Rights Law,  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102, et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law,   Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   21.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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  hotelbelleclaire.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and  services offered in Hotel Belleclaire, during the relevant statutory period.”    23.  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.   24.  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  hotelbelleclaire.com and Hotel Belleclaire. 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 hotelbelleclaire.com and by extension the goods and  services offered through Defendant’s website to Hotel Belleclaire.   26.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class. The class,  similarly to the Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that  Belleclaire Hotel has violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or  remove access barriers on their website, hotelbelleclaire.com, so it can be independently accessible  to the class of people who are legally blind.   27.  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  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.   28.  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.   30.  References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  31.  Belleclaire Hotel operates Hotel Belleclaire, a historic Upper Westside boutique  hotel.   32.  Hotelbelleclaire.com is a service and benefit offered by Belleclaire Hotel and Hotel  Belleclaire throughout the United States, including New York state. Hotelbelleclaire.com is  owned, controlled and/or operated by Belleclaire Hotel.   33.  Hotelbelleclaire.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for  online sale that are available in Hotel Belleclaire. The online store allows the user to browse, select  and book reservations; learn about the Belleclaire Hotel’s history and founders, find the hotel  location; and perform a variety of other functions.   34.  Among the features offered by hotelbelleclaire.com are the following:  (a)  hotel information, allowing persons who wish to visit Hotel Belleclaire to  learn its location, hours and phone numbers;  (b)  an online store, allowing customers to book a reservation;  (c)  information about Belleclaire Hotel’s membership program, history and sales  inquiries; and  (d)  sale of many of the products and services available at Hotel Belleclaire.   36.  Belleclaire Hotel denies the blind access to goods, services and information made  available through hotelbelleclaire.com by preventing them from freely navigating  hotelbelleclaire.com.   37.  The Internet has become a significant source of information for conducting business  and for doing everyday activities such as shopping, banking, etc., for sighted and blind persons.   38.  The blind access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with screen-reading  software which vocalizes visual information on a computer screen. Except for a blind person  whose residual vision is still sufficient to use magnification, screen access software provides the  only method by which a blind person can independently access the Internet. Unless websites are  designed to allow for use in this manner, blind persons are unable to fully access Internet websites  and the information, products and services contained therein.   40.  Hotelbelleclaire.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 forms, the  lack of adequate prompting and labeling; the denial of keyboard access; and the requirement that  transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   42.  Hotelbelleclaire.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 an online booking site such as hotelbelleclaire.com, these forms include search fields  to locate menu items, fields that specify the room desired, and fields used to fill-out personal  information, including address and credit card information. On Hotelbelleclaire.com, because the  “Checkout” webpage is not compatible with screen reading software, blind customers are not able  to find the form to fill out personal and payment information to book a room. Due to the lack of  adequate labeling, Plaintiff and blind customers are unable to complete a reservation.   43.  More specifically, Plaintiff and blind customers are prevented from making a  reservation on Hotel Belleclaire’s initial page. Unlike other sites, Defendant’s website does not  even input the current date to at least present Plaintiff and blind customers with an overview of the  available types of rooms and amenities. Thus, Plaintiff and blind customers are left without online  alternatives to make reservations.    44.  Moreover, the lack of navigation links on Belleclaire Hotel’s website makes  attempting to navigate through hotelbelleclaire.com even more time consuming and confusing for  Plaintiff and blind consumers. After selecting “Our hotel” on the home page, blind customers have  to tab through the entire page to get to the main content.    46.  Due to hotelbelleclaire.com’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and blind customers must in  turn spend time, energy, and/or money to make their reservation at a Hotel Belleclaire in person  or via phone. Some blind customers may require a driver to get to the hotel or require assistance  in navigating the hotel. In which case, the promotion or room reservation may no longer be  available. By contrast, if hotelbelleclaire.com was accessible, a blind person could independently  investigate products and programs and book reservations via the Internet as sighted individuals  can and do.   47.  Hotelbelleclaire.com thus contains access barriers which deny full and equal access  to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use hotelbelleclaire.com and who would otherwise be able to  fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of Hotel Belleclaire in New York State.   48.  Plaintiff AMANIE RILEY has made numerous attempts to complete a reservation  on hotelbelleclaire.com, most recently in May 2016, but was unable to do so independently  because of the many access barriers on Defendant’s website, causing hotelbelleclaire.com to be  inaccessible and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals.   50.  These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of hotelbelleclaire.com and Hotel Belleclaire.   51.  Belleclaire Hotel 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  (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.   52.  Belleclaire Hotel utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.  53.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations  as if set forth fully herein.   55.  Hotel Belleclaire located in New York State and throughout the United States is  a  sales establishment and public accommodation within the definition of 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E).  Hotelbelleclaire.com  is  a  service,  privilege  or  advantage  of  Hotel  Belleclaire.  Hotelbelleclaire.com is a service that is by and integrated with this hotel.   56.  Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because they own and operate Hotel  Belleclaire.   57.  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.   58.  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.   59.  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.”    61.  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 large 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 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.   62.  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 Hotel Belleclaire who are  blind have been denied full and equal access to hotelbelleclaire.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.    63.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.    64.  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 hotelbelleclaire.com and Hotel Belleclaire in violation of Title III of the Americans  with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   66.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   67.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.     68.  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.  69.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   70.  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.”   71.  Hotel Belleclaire located in New York State and throughout the United States is a  sales establishment and public accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).  Hotelbelleclaire.com  is  a  service,  privilege  or  advantage  of  Hotel  Belleclaire.  Hotelbelleclaire.com is a service that is by and integrated with this hotel.   73.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to hotelbelleclaire.com, causing hotelbelleclaire.com and the services  integrated with Hotel Belleclaire 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.    74.  Specifically, 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.”   75.  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.”   77.  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. Exc. 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 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.   78.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   79.  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 in the full and equal  enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or  opportunities of hotelbelleclaire.com and Hotel Belleclaire 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 members of the class will continue to suffer irreparable  harm.   81.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties and fines  pursuant to N.Y. Exc. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   82.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   83.  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.   84.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.    85.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   86.  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 …”     88.  Hotel Belleclaire located in New York State is a sales establishment and public  accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2). Hotelbelleclaire.com  is a service, privilege or advantage of Hotel Belleclaire. Hotelbelleclaire.com is a service that is  by and integrated with this hotel.   89.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because they own and operate  Hotel Belleclaire and hotelbelleclaire.com. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y.  Civil Law § 40-c(2).   90.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to hotelbelleclaire.com, causing hotelbelleclaire.com and the  services integrated with Hotel Belleclaire 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.    91.  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 large 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 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.   93.  Specifically, under NY Civ 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 …”   94.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   95.  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 being directly or  indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges  thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.    96.  Plaintiff and class members are entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred  dollars per instance, as well as civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for  each and every offense.  97.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.  