21.  Defendant is a furniture store that operates its furniture store as well as the Website  to the public. The furniture store is located at 2652 Broadway, New York, New York. Defendant’s  furniture store constitutes a place of public accommodation.  Defendant’s furniture store provides  to the public important goods and services.  Defendant’s Website provides consumers with access  to an array of goods and services which allow consumers to find information about the furniture  store location and hours, furniture, to inquire about pricing and other products available online and  in the furniture store for purchase and view privacy policies and other goods and services offered  by the Defendant.   22.  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 furniture  store. 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  furniture store and the numerous goods, services, and benefits offered to the public through the  Website.   24.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, the last occurring in February 2020,  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 on the location and hours of the furniture store, furniture, inquiries about  pricing and other products available online and in the furniture store for purchase and view privacy  policies and other goods and services offered by Defendant.   26.  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.    27.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from visiting  Defendant’s physical location, and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals because: Plaintiff was  unable to find the location and hours of operation of Defendant’s physical furniture store on its  Website and other important information, preventing Plaintiff from visiting the location to  purchase furniture.   29.  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.   30.  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 not 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.   31.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.   33.  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 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  Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related problems.   34.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually- impaired people could independently locate Defendant’s furniture store’s locations and hours of  operation, shop for and otherwise research related products and services via the Website.   36.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining its Website and has generated significant revenue from the Website.  These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making its Website equally accessible to  visually impaired customers.    37.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will  continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  38.  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 location, during the  relevant statutory period.   39.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks to 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  location, during the relevant statutory period.    40.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks to 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  location, during the relevant statutory period.    46.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   47.  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).   48.  Defendant’s furniture store is a place of public accommodation 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 furniture store. The Website is a service that is integrated with these  locations.   50.  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).   51.  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).   53.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  54.  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.   55.  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.”   56.  Defendant’s physical location is located in the State of New York and constitute a  sales establishment and place of public 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 this physical location.   57.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and operates  its physical location and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law §  292(1).   59.  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".   60.  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.”   62.  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 not sufficiently intuitive and/or  obvious and 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.   63.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   64.  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, 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.   65.  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.   66.  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.   68.  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.  69.  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.   70.  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.”   71.  Defendant’s location is a sales establishment and 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.   72.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its physical location  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).   73.  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 location 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.   75.  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 not sufficiently intuitive and/or  obvious and 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.   76.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   77.  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.   79.  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.   80.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   81.  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.  82.  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.   83.  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 location, which Defendant owns, operate 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.   84.  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.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  