21.  Defendant  offers  the  commercial  website,  37.  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 goods and services offered  in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   38.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks  certify a New York 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  and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services  offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   40.  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 has  violated the ADA, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers  on its Website so it can be independently accessible to the Class.   41.  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.   42.  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.   43.  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.  45.  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).   46.  Defendant’s restaurants 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 restaurants. The Website is a service that is  heavily integrated with these locations and is a gateway thereto.   47.  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).   48.  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).   50.  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.   51.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  52.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   54.  Defendant’s physical locations are located in State of New York and  throughout the United States and constitute sales establishments and public  accommodations 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 these physical locations and is a gateway thereto.   55.  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).   56.  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, goods and  services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   58.  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.”   59.  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.   61.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   62.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York Sub-Class Members on the basis of disability in the full  and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Defendant’s Website and its physical locations  under § 296(2) et seq. and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins  Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the Sub- Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   63.  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.   64.  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.   65.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   66.  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.  67.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   69.  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 . . .”   70.  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.”   71.  Defendant’s New York City physical locations are sales establishments  and public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).  Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant and its Website is  a service that is heavily integrated with these establishments and is a gateway thereto.   72.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   74.  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 . . .”   75.  Under NY 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 . . .”   76.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   77.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York Sub-Class Members 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.   78.  Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per  instance, as well as civil penalties and fines under N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for each  and every offense.  79.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   80.  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’s  locations  are  sales  establishments  and  public  accommodations within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its  Website is a service that is heavily integrated with its establishments and is a gateway  thereto.   82.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its  physical 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).   83.  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 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.   85.  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 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.   86.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   88.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and  therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   89.  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.   90.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   91.  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.  92.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and New York Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   93.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that its Website  contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the goods,  services and facilities of its Website and by extension its physical locations, which  Defendant owns, operates and controls and fails to comply with applicable laws  including, but not limited to, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.  §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et  seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.   DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATES CIVIL RIGHTS LAW  