16.  Plaintiff, for himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, seeks class action  certification pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23 (b)(2) of all  disabled individuals in the United States that are unable to walk as a result of their disability and,  as a consequence, must use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device and who have been  denied equal access to goods and services of the Defendant’s Hotel, Website and the Websites.   17.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks to certify  a New York State subclass under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23 (b)(2) of all  disabled individuals in State of New York who are unable to walk as a result of their disability  and, as a consequence, must use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device and who have  been denied equal access to goods and services of the Defendant’s Hotel, Website and the  Websites.           18.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks to certify  a New York State subclass under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23 (b)(2) of all  disabled individuals in the City of New York who are unable to walk as a result of their disability  and, as a consequence, must use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device and who have  been denied equal access to goods and services of the Defendant’s Hotel, Website and the  Websites.       19.  The Class is so numerous, being composed of millions of disabled individuals in the United  States that are unable to walk as a result of their disability and must use a wheelchair or other  motorized mobility device, that joinder of all members is impracticable, Additionally, there are  questions of law and/or fact common to the Class and the claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the  Class claims.     20.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class including:                        a.   Whether the Hotel and Website are "public accommodation[s]" under the ADA                             and New York laws;                       b.   Whether there was a violation under the ADA due to the barriers that exist                              at the Defendant’s Hotel and its Website and whether the Plaintiff and the                              Class were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,                              privileges, advantages, or accommodations; and                       c.   Whether there was a violation under New York law due to the barriers that exist                             on the Defendant’s Hotel and its Website and whether the Plaintiff and the                             Class were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,                 privileges, advantages, or accommodations.   21.  The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class as they both claim that Defendant  violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to have it’s Hotel, Website and the  Websites accessible.    22.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class members  as the Plaintiff and the Class are individuals having the same claims as they are unable to walk and  must use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device.     23.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendant has   acted or refused to act on grounds applicable to the Class making declaratory and injunctive relief  appropriate.     24.  Questions of law or fact common to Class members predominate questions affecting  individual Class members and a class action will fairly and efficiently decide this action.       25.  Counsel for the Plaintiff is experienced representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants in  Class actions.  As such the Class will be properly represented.     26.  Judicial economy will be served by maintaining this lawsuit as a class action as it will  prevent the filing of a voluminous number of individual lawsuits throughout the United States by  people who are individuals having the same claims as the Plaintiff all of whom are disabled, unable  to walk and must use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device.     27.  Defendant is required by the ADA, its accompanying regulations contained in the Code of  Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Architectural Guidelines and 2010 ADA Standards to ensure that its  place of lodging complies with the standards applicable to public accommodations and is  accessible to disabled individuals.     28.  28 C.F.R. §36.302(e)(l), which became effective on March 12, 2012, provides:   “Reservations made by places of lodging. A public accommodation  that owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of lodging shall,  with respect to reservations made by any means, including by  telephone, in-person, or through a third party –  (i) Modify its policies, practices, or procedures to ensure that  individuals with disabilities can make reservations for accessible  guest rooms during the same hours and in the same manner as  individuals who do not need accessible rooms;   (ii) Identify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest  rooms offered through its reservations service in enough detail to  reasonably  permit  individuals  with  disabilities to  assess  independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her  accessibility needs;   (iii) Ensure that accessible guest rooms are held for use by  individuals with disabilities until all other guest rooms of that type  have been rented and the accessible room requested is the only  remaining room of that type;   (iv) Reserve, upon request, accessible guest rooms or specific types  of guest rooms and ensure that the guest rooms requested are  blocked and removed from all reservations systems; and               (v) Guarantee that the specific accessible guest room reserved               through its reservations service is held for the reserving customer,               regardless of whether a specific room is held in response to reservations               made by others”.   29.  “Section 36.302 of the 1991 Title III regulation requires public accommodations to make  reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures when such modifications are  necessary to afford access to any goods, services, facilities, privileges advantages or  accommodations, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would  fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or  accommodations.  Hotels, timeshares resorts, and other places of lodging are subject to this  requirement and must make reasonable modifications to reservation policies, practices or  procedures when necessary to ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to reserve accessible  hotel rooms with the same efficiency, immediacy, and convenience as those who do not need  accessible rooms”. 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A.   30.  Third-Party reservation services should also be subject to these requirements.       31.  Hotels, motels and other places of lodging are required to identify and describe all  accessible features in the hotel and guestrooms; “[t]his requirement is essential to ensure  individuals with disabilities receive information they need to benefit from the services offered by  the place of lodging.” “As a practical matter, ……. designating a room as “accessible” does not  ensure necessarily that the room complies with all of the 1991 Standards.” 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx.  A.    32.  “Further hotel rooms that are in full compliance with current standards may differ, and  individuals with disabilities must be able to ascertain which features – in new and existing facilities  – are included in the hotel’s accessible guest rooms. For example, under certain circumstances, an  accessible hotel bathroom may meet accessibility requirements with either a bathtub or a roll in  shower. The presence or absence of particular accessible features such as these may mean the  difference between a room that is usable by a particular person with a disability and one that is  not”.  28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A.    33.  For hotels that were built after the effective date of the 1991 Standards, it is sufficient to  advise that the hotel itself is fully ADA compliant, and for each accessible guestroom, to specify  the room type, the type of accessible bathing facility in the room, and the communications features  in the room. 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A.   34.  “For older hotels with limited accessibility features, information about the hotel should  include, at a minimum, information about accessible entrances to the hotel, the path of travel to  guest check-in and other essential services, and the accessible route to the accessible room or  rooms. In addition to the room information described above, these hotels should provide  information about important features that do not comply with the 1991 Standards. For example, if  the door to the “accessible” room or bathroom is narrower than required, this information should  be included (e.g., door to guest room measures 30 inches clear)”. 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appx. A.   35.  The Hotel is a place of public accommodation that owns and/or leases and operates a place  of lodging pursuant to the ADA.  Additionally, the Website is a place of public accommodation  defined as a “place[s] of exhibition and entertainment,” “places of recreation,” and “service  establishments.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.201(a); 42 U.S.C. § 12181 (7).     36.       Defendant, by itself or by and through a third party owns, operates, maintains and   controls the Website and Websites which contains an online reservation system located at   www.borohotel.com, www.hotels.com, www.hoteltonight.com, www.reservations.com, and   www.booking.com.  The Website and Websites are subject to the requirements of 28 C.F.R.   Section 36.302(e).       37.      Prior to the commencement of this action, Plaintiff visited the Website and Websites on  various dates including January 28, 2019 and date thereafter to learn about accessible features of  the Hotel and in order to assess whether he could reserve an accessible room at the Hotel.  However,  the Plaintiff was unable to do so as the Website does not comply with the requirements of the ADA,  including the requirements contained in 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e).  The Plaintiff and others desire to  stay at the Hotel but don’t know if they are able to do so due to the lack of information on the  Website and Websites.  Plaintiff plans on visiting the Website and Websites regularly to see if the  Defendants have modified their site to be in compliance with the ADA.  So far they have not.     38.        The Defendants discriminate against the Plaintiff and other disabled individuals throughout  the United States who are unable to walk and must use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility  device excluding them of the same goods, services, features, facilities, benefits, advantages and  accommodations of the Hotel and Website that are available to others.     39.   The Website’s homepage mentions features in reference to accessibility features of the Hotel’s  room and the common areas.  The problem is that the reservation system does not detail which  rooms are accessible or not.  Consequently, Plaintiff and the Class cannot chose a room that they  know will be accessible.  If you click the link “Book A Room” no information arises in reference  to the accessibility of a particular room or information for Plaintiff to decipher which room is  accessible or not.  There is literally no information about the room’s accessibility features.  If you  put in particular dates to reserve a room and access the availability of rooms on particular dates  and see a list of available rooms on that date no accessibility information or accessibility details  for each type of available room are displayed.   You can click on the rooms features but there is  no narrative detailing whether the room is accessible or not.          40.    The Website’s reservation system contains no information as to whether any of its rooms  available on particular dates contain accessible features including but not limited to roll in showers  or bathtubs, built in seating, grab bars, lowered sinks, wrapped pipes, sink and door hardware, or  sufficient maneuvering space complaint within the room.     41.     The Website also is devoid of most of the accessibility information concerning common  areas and Hotel amenities and whether the Hotel is accessible in accordance with the 1991  Standards, or if not, the ways in which it is not with regard to the Hotel’s entrance, the registration  desk, recreational facilities, the restaurants, the parking areas, business center and the routes to and  from all of the aforementioned to and from each other such that the Plaintiff, the Class and Subclass  can evaluate to determine whether the Hotel is accessible to them, although it provides very general  information.         42.     Plaintiff has saved and retained all webpages from the Website and Websites concerning his  claim and that of the Class and Subclass.      43.       Upon information and belief, Defendant has not complied with various reservation system  requirements: (i) that accessible rooms are held for use by individuals with disabilities until all  other non-accessible guest rooms have been rented and the accessible room requested is the only  remaining room of that type [§ 36.302 (e)(1)(iii)] and (ii) the requirement to reserve, upon request,  accessible guest rooms or specific types of guest rooms and ensure that the guest rooms requested  are blocked and removed from reservation systems.  28 C.F.R. § 36.302 (e)(1)(iv).    44.     Plaintiff and the Class will visit the Website and Websites again to determine if the Defendant  has complied with the laws and to learn about the accessible (and inaccessible) features of the  Hotel and rooms because they desire to stay there.       45.   Plaintiff and other disabled individuals requiring mobility assistance are aware that the  Website is non-compliant at this time and that they have been discriminated against by the  Defendants.     46.     The Website can be viewed by individuals located in New York State in addition to the other  states of the United States and can be reached from computers, tablets and cellphones which can  access the internet.     47.     Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and all other mobility-impaired individuals by  denying full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages and accommodations offered on the Website in violation of the ADA.       48.     Modifying the Website and Websites to comply with the ADA is readily achievable without  undue burden.      49.     Defendant’s non-compliant acts prevents the Plaintiff, Class and Subclass from having equal  access as the remaining public preventing them from enjoying the goods, services and benefits  offered by the Website.      50.     The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in  paragraphs “1” to “49” as if set forth fully herein.   51.     The Plaintiff is uniped, an amputee, and must use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility  device.  The Plaintiff has an impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life  activities and is therefore an individual with a disability as defined under the ADA, 42 U.S.C.  § 12102(2).      52.     Title III of the ADA provides that ''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); 28 C.F.R. §36.201.      53.  Title III of the ADA provides that “places of public accommodation” may not  discriminate against people with disabilities.  Defendant operates a place of public  accommodation as defined by Title III of ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) ("place of exhibition and  entertainment," "place of recreation," and "service establishments").   54.     Defendant has failed to provide accessibility features on its Website and Websites about the  Hotel, its common areas, its features, its reservation system and its rooms thereby making it non- accessible to disabled individuals who cannot walk without the use of use a wheelchair or other  motorized mobility device.    55.     Discrimination under Title III includes the denial of an opportunity for the person who  cannot walk without the use of use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device to participate  in programs or services or providing a service that is not equal to that afforded to others.  42  U.S.C. § 12182(b)(l)(A)(i-iii).   56.    Discrimination includes the failure to maintain accessible features of facilities and  equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disability.  67.     The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs  “1” to “66” as if set forth fully herein.   68.    At all times relevant to this action, the New York Human Rights Law (“NYHRL”),  Article 15 of the N.Y. Executive Law §§ 290 et. seq. covers the actions of the Defendant.     69.     The Plaintiff, at all times relevant to this action, has a substantial impairment to a major  life activity of walking and is an individual with a disability under Article 15 of the N.Y.  Executive Law § 292(21).     70.    The Defendant, at all relevant times to this action, owns and operates a place of  accommodation, the Website and the Hotel, within the meaning of Article 15 of the N.Y.  Executive Law § 292(9).  Defendant is a person within the meaning of Article 15 of the N.Y.  Executive Law § 292(1).      71.     The Website and Websites are gateways to and part of the Hotel which is a place of  public accommodation.     72.     Plaintiff has visited the Website and Websites and has encountered barriers of access  that exist.   73.    Pursuant to Article 15 N.Y. Executive Law § 296(2)(a) “it shall be 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."   74.     Discrimination includes the refusal to adopt and implement reasonable modifications  in policies, practices or procedures when they are necessary to afford, facilities, privileges,  advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities. Article 15 of the N.Y.  Executive Law§ 296(2)(a), § 296(2)(c)(i).   75.     Defendant’s actions violate Article 15 of the N.Y. Exec. Law§ 296(2)(a) by discriminating  against the Plaintiff and Subclass by (i) owning and operating the Website that is inaccessible to  disabled individuals who cannot walk without the use of use a wheelchair or other motorized  mobility device; and (ii) by not removing access barriers to its Website in order to make  accessibility features of the Hotel and its rooms known to disabled individuals who cannot walk  without the use of use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device; and (iii) by refusing to  modify the Hotel’s online reservation systems on its Website and Websites when such  modifications are necessary to afford facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to  individuals with disabilities. This inaccessibility denies disabled individuals who cannot walk  without the use of use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device full and equal access to the  facilities, goods and services that the Defendant makes available to individuals who are not  disabled and can walk without the need of a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device.  Article  15 of the N.Y. Exec. Law§ 296(2)(c).     76.     The Defendant’s 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.” Article 15 of the N.Y. Exec. Law§ 296(2)(c).    77.     Established guidelines exist for making websites accessible to disabled individuals who  cannot walk without the use of use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device and are easily  obtainable.  These guidelines have been used and followed by government and businesses in  making their websites accessible to disabled individuals who cannot walk without the use of use a  wheelchair or other motorized mobility device, including but not limited to, having descriptions  of accessibility features of a Hotel or lack thereof of its entrance, its common areas, its rooms, its  travel routes to and from various components of the Hotel and having a reservation system that  does not exclude the disabled.  Incorporating these components in its Website and Websites would  not fundamentally alter the Defendants’ Website, Hotel or business and would not result in an  undue burden.       78.   Defendant’s have intentionally and willfully discriminated against the Plaintiff and  Subclass in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, Article 15 of the N.Y. Exec.  Law § 296(2) and this discrimination continues to date.       79.     Absent injunctive relief, Defendant’s discrimination will continue against the Plaintiff and  Subclass causing irreparable harm.     80.     Plaintiff and the Subclass are therefore entitled to compensatory damages, civil penalties  and fines for each and every discriminatory act in addition to reasonable attorney fees and the costs  and disbursements of this action.  Article 15 of the N.Y. Exe. Law §§ 297(9), 297(4)(c) et seq.  81.        The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs  “1” to “80” as if set forth fully herein.     82.     Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y. Civil Rights  Law § 41.     83.   Persons within N.Y.S. are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages,   facilities and privileges of 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 of a place of public accommodation, shall directly or indirectly   refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations,  advantages,   facilities and privileges thereof.  N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40.     84.     No person because of disability, as defined in § 292 (21) of the Executive Law, shall be  subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights by person or by any firm, corporation or  institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law (“CVR”) § 40-c.     85.     § 292 of Article 15 of the N.Y. Executive Law deems a disability a physical, mental or  medical impairment resulting from anatomical, physiological, genetic or neurological  conditions which prevents the exercise of a normal bodily function.  As such the Plaintiff is  disabled under the N.Y. Civil Rights Law.     86.   Defendant discriminates against the Plaintiff and Subclass under CVR § 40 as  Defendant’s Website is a public accommodation that does not provide full and equal  accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to all persons and discriminates against  disabled individuals who cannot walk without the use of use a wheelchair or other motorized  mobility device.       87.     Defendant intentionally and willfully failed to remove the barriers on their Website  discriminating against the Plaintiff and Subclass preventing access in violation of CVR §40.     88.     Defendant has failed to take any steps to halt and correct its discriminatory conduct and  discriminates against and will continue to discriminate against the Plaintiff and the Subclass  members.     89.     Under N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41 a corporation which violates any of the provisions of §§  40, 40-a, 40-b or 42 shall be liable for 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 Plaintiff or Defendant shall reside.     90.     Plaintiff and the Subclass hereby demand compensatory damages of five hundred dollars for  the Defendant’s acts of discrimination including civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil  Law § 40 et seq..    91.     The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs  “1” to “90” as if set forth fully herein.     92.     At all times, the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), New York City  Administrative Code §§ 8-101 et. seq. applied to the conduct of the Defendant as the  Defendant owns and operates the Website and is a person under the law.     93.     At all times concerning this action the Plaintiff and the Subclass have had a substantial  impairment to a major life activity of walking and are individuals with a disability under  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(16).     94.    At all times concerning this action the Defendant’s Website is a place of public  accommodation as defined in N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(9).      95.     “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 the actual or perceived ……. disability …. of any person to  withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations required to make reasonable  accommodations to a disabled individual and may not “refuse, withhold from or deny to such  person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof” N.Y.C.  Admin. Code § 8-107(4)(a).     96.     The willful and intentional non-removal of the Website’s barriers of access for the Plaintiff  and the Subclass by the Defendant discriminates against disabled individuals who cannot walk  without the use of use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device by denying them full and  equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that Defendant makes available to the non- disabled individuals who can walk without the use of use a wheelchair or other motorized mobility  device.       97.     It is discriminatory for the Defendant “not to provide a 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. Administrative Code § 8- 107(15)(a).   98.     Defendant’s actions will continue to prevent the Plaintiff and Subclass from accessing the  Website as the remaining public can and the Plaintiff requests injunctive relief.     99.     Plaintiff and Subclass are also entitled to compensatory damages for the injuries and loss  sustained as a result of the Defendant’s discriminatory conduct in addition to punitive damages  and civil penalties and fines for each offense, attorney fees, costs and disbursements of this action.   N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120(8), § 8-126(a) and § 8-502(a).    CLASS AND SUBCLASS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF  100.     The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs  “1” to “99” as if fully set forth herein.    101.   The Plaintiff claims that the Website and Websites contains barriers denying disabled  individuals who cannot walk without the use of a wheelchair or other motorized mobility device  full and equal access to the goods and services of the Website.   102.     Defendant’s Website and Websites fail to comply with applicable laws and the Defendant  discriminates against the Plaintiff and Subclass under 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.   103.     The Defendant denies these claims.    104.     The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment such that the parties understand and know their  respective rights and obligations.    THE PLAINTIFF AND THE SUBCLASS  Violation of New York City Human Rights Law   THE PLAINTIFF AND THE SUBCLASS  Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law   THE PLAINTIFF, THE CLASS AND THE SUBCLASS  Violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act   THE PLAINTIFF AND THE SUBCLASS                                 Violation of New York State Human Rights Law  