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   Websites, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   21.  Defendant is a Resort and Casino that operates MONTICELLO GAMING Resort  and Casino as well as the MONTICELLO GAMING website, offering features  which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services which  Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations.   22.  Defendant operates MONTICELLO GAMING (its “Casino”) in New York, at 204  NY-17B, Monticello, NY 12701.   23.  Its Casinos constitute places of public accommodation. Defendant’s Casinos  provide to the public important goods and services. Defendant’s Website provides  consumers with access to an array of goods and services including Casino locations  and hours, access to its Player Login online portal, information pertaining to its  hotel, spa and casino, including information on the various slot machines and  gaming platforms it offers at its physical locations, and related goods and services.   25.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny Plaintiff,  along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendant’s website,  and to therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered and  integrated with Defendant’s Casinos. Due to Defendant’s failure and refusal to  remove access barriers to its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have  been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant’s Casinos and the  numerous goods and services and benefits offered to the public through the  Website.   26.  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.   29.  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, products, 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.    30.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from visiting  Defendant’s physical locations and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals  because: Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of operation of  Defendant’s physical Casinos on its Website and other important information,  preventing Plaintiff from visiting the locations to take advantage of the goods and  services that it provides to the public.   32.  Through her 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.   33.  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, 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.   34.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.   36.  Because Defendant’s Website have 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. 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    38.  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.    39.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining their 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.    40.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will  continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  41.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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.   42.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks 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 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.    44.  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  products,  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  products,  services,  facilities,  privileges,  advantages,  or  accommodations to people with visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL  or NYCHRL.   45.  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, NYSYRHL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access  barriers on its Website so either can be independently accessible to the Class.   47.  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.   48.  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.  49.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   50.  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).   51.  Defendant’s Casinos 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 Casinos. The Website is a service that is integrated with  these locations.   53.  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 products, 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).   54.  Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, unlawful discrimination also  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; and a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that  no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated 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.  42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii).   56.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  57.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York State Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   58.  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.”   59.  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 by  and integrated with these physical locations.   60.  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).   62.  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".   63.  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.”   65.  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 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.   66.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   67.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against  Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class Members on the basis of disability in the  full and equal enjoyment of the products, 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.   68.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of New York State Human Rights  Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   70.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   71.  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.  72.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York State Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   73.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y. Civil  Rights Law § 41.   74.  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 . . .”   75.  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.”   77.  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).   78.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the goods and  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.   79.  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 . . .”   81.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   82.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against  Plaintiff and New York State 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.   83.  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.  84.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York City Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   85.  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.”   87.  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).   88.  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,  products, and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   89.  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).   91.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   92.  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 products, 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 class will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   93.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   94.  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.   95.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   96.  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.  98.  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  products, services and facilities of its Website and by extension its physical  locations, which Defendant owns, operations and 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. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.   99.  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. § 1281 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  