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.   25.  Defendant offers the commercial website, WWW.WOLFFER.COM, to  the public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the  goods and services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations.  The goods and services offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to the  following, which allow consumers to: find information about Vineyard locations and  hours of operation, view and purchase wine bottles and other items, details about a  variety of products online and available for purchase in Defendant’s Vineyard,  instructions to join the wine club, book or make reservations, access event details and  -9-  purchase tickets, information about the Vineyard’s history, search for local retailers and  to learn about other important information.   26.  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 Vineyard. 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 Vineyard and the numerous goods,  services, and benefits offered to the public through the Website.   27.  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.   28.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, the last occurring in September,  2018, Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal  access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the  public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of  the Website, as well as to the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s physical  location in New York by being unable to learn more information about the Defendant’s  Vineyard location and hours, view and purchase wine bottles and other items, details  about a variety of products online and available for purchase in Defendant’s Vineyard,  instructions to join the wine club, book or make reservations, access event details and  -10-  purchase tickets, information about the Vineyard’s history, search for local retailers and  to learn about other important information.   29.  While attempting to navigate the Website, Plaintiff encountered multiple  accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired people that include, but are not  limited to, the following:  a.  Lack of Alternative Text (“alt-text”), or a text equivalent. Alt-text  is an invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web accessibility  requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that screen-reading software can speak  the alt-text where a sighted user sees pictures, which includes captcha prompts. Alt-text  does not change the visual presentation, but instead a text box shows when the mouse  moves over the picture. The lack of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers  from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics. As a result, visually-impaired  customers of the Vineyard are unable to determine what is on the website, browse, look  for Vineyard locations and hours of operation, check out Defendant’s programs and  specials, or make any purchases;  b.  Empty Links That Contain No Text causing the function or  purpose of the link to not be presented to the user. They can introduce confusion for  keyboard and screen-reader users;  c.  Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address  which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader  users; and  d.  Linked Images Missing Alt-text, which causes problems if an  image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. A screen  -11-  reader then has no content to present the user as to the function of the link, including  information contained in PDFs.  e.  Defendant’s website 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 Defendant’s website, these  forms include search fields to locate bottles of wine, fields that specify the number of  items desired, 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 wine items nor can they enter their  personal identification and financial information with confidence and security.  f.  Defendant’s website 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, Defendant’s website’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.  g.  Due to the Defendant’s website’s inaccessibility, Plaintiff and  blind customers must in turn spend extra time, energy, and/or money to make their  purchases at Defendant’s Vineyard. Some blind customers may require a driver to get to  the Vineyard or require assistance in navigating the Vineyard. By contrast, if Defendant’s  website was accessible, a blind person could independently investigate products and  -12-  programs and make purchases and reservations 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 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, Defendant’s  website’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 Defendant’s website  Defendant Must Remove Barriers To Its Website    30.  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, goods, 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.    31.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s physical Vineyard locations, and enjoying them equal to sighted  individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of operation of  Defendant’s physical Vineyard on its Website and other important information,  preventing Plaintiff from visiting or returning the location and Website to purchase items  and to view the items.  -13-   32.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   33.  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.   34.  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.   35.  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.  The ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks  in this action. In relevant part, the ADA requires:  In the case of violations of . . . their title, injunctive relief shall include an order to alter  facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals  -14-  with disabilities . . . Where appropriate, injunctive relief shall also include  requiring the . . . modification of a policy . . .  42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   37.  Because Defendant’s Website has never been equally accessible, and  because Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its  Website to become and remain accessible, Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and  seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant  acceptable to Plaintiff (“Agreed Upon Consultant”) to assist Defendant to comply with  WCAG 2.0 guidelines for Defendant’s Website. Plaintiff seeks that their 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.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired people could independently view service items, locate Defendant’s  Vineyard locations and hours of operation, shop for and otherwise research related  products and services via the Website.  -15-   39.  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.    40.  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.    41.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  42.  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.   43.  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.   -16-   44.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks certify  a New York City subclass under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind  individuals in the City of New York who have attempted to access Defendant’s Website  and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services  offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.    45.  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 goods, 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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people  with visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   46.  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.  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  -17-  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.   48.  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 their litigation.   49.  Judicial economy will be served by maintaining their 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.  50.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   51.  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).  -18-   52.  Defendant’s Vineyard is a place of 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 Vineyard. The Website is a service that is  integrated with this location.   53.  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).   54.  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).   55.  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).  -19-   56.  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.   57.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  58.  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.   59.  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.”   60.  Defendant’s physical location is located in State of New York and  throughout the United States and constitute a sales establishment and place of public  -20-  accommodation 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.   61.  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.  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. Their  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and  services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   63.  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".   64.  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  -21-  would fundamentally alter the nature of the facility, privilege, advantage or  accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.”   65.  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.   66.  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.   67.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   68.  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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  -22-  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.   69.  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 compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   71.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   72.  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.  73.  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.   74.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41.   75.  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  -23-  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 . . .”   76.  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 her 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’s New York State physical locations is a sales establishment  and place of public accommodation 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 by and integrated with these establishments.   78.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it advertises,  owns and operates its physical location and Website. Defendant is a person within the  meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   79.  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 services  integrated with Defendant’s physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind.  Their inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and  services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   80.  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  -24-  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.  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 ...”   82.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   83.  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.   84.  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.  85.  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.  -25-   86.  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’s location is a sales establishment and a place of public  accommodation within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website  is a service that is integrated with its establishment.   88.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it advertises, 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).   89.  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.  The inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and  services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   90.  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).  -26-   91.  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.   92.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   93.  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 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.   94.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and  therefore Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   95.  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.  -27-   96.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   97.  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.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class and New York State and City  Sub-Classes Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   99.  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, 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.  100.  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 NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  