21.  Defendant is a footwear and accessories retailer, and owns and operates  www.burnetieshoes.com (its “Website”), offering features which should allow all  consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the  delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.   22.  Defendant’s Website offers products and services for online sale and general  delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to  browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions and prices, and avail  consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.   23.  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 and NVDA screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has  visited the Website on separate occasions using a screen-reader.   25.  Specifically, Plaintiff was unable to purchase the Burnetie Men’s Suede Leather  Carnaby Sneakers with his screen reading software, as he encountered multiple  error messages such as “Sorry The Page You Requested Was Not Found” and/or  “Error Code 404.”   26.  Defendant’s website, www.burnetieshoes.com, also requires the use of a mouse to  create an account. Yet Plaintiff 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.   27.  Nor did it provide Plaintiff with the ability to skim content, as Plaintiff was forced  to manually scroll, line by line, in an effort to browse content of interest located  toward the bottom of a given page.   28.  Finally, the Website did not provide a Chat feature to enable Plaintiff to request  help navigating the Website.   29.  These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy  Defendant’s website the same way sighted individuals do.    31.  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 visiting the Website, presently and in the future.     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 his 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.   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 . . . this title, injunctive relief shall include an order to  alter facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals  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 2.1 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 2.1 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 himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to certify a  nationwide class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind  individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant’s Website  and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services,  during the relevant statutory period.   43.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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, 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 himself 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).   52.  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 products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an  entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   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 himself 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 Website and its’ sale of goods to the general public,  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.   60.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and operates  its 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.”   64.  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 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  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 his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   69.  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.   70.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   72.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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  their Website, and 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 such Website 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 . . .”   80.  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 ...”   81.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   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 himself 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.”   86.  Defendant’s Website is a  sales establishment and public accommodations within  the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).   87.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its Website, making  it a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   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).   90.  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.   91.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   93.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his 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.  97.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.  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   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW  