12. Excluded from the Class is any person who is an executive, officer, employee, and/or  director of the Defendant corporation.    13. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all Class members is not  practical. The precise size of the Class will be determined through discovery.    14. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the entire Class. Plaintiff, along with every member  of the Class, has suffered civil right violations because of Defendant’s continuing failure to comply  with the ADA and ADAAG on its Website and/or other online reservation platforms.     15.  Plaintiff can and will adequately protect the interests of all members of the Class and has  retained competent counsel experienced in both ADA and class action litigation. Plaintiff has no  interests that are contrary to the interests of the Class members in this case.   16.  A class action is far superior to any other possible method for adjudicating this  controversy. Each member of the Class is entitled to injunctive relief, as well as possible statutory  damages under New York law. The expense and burden associated with individual litigation of  each claim held by each member of the Class would be extraordinarily inefficient for Defendant,  members of the Class, and the courts.    17. Common questions of law and fact prevail with respect to all members of the Class and  predominate over questions applicable solely to individual Class members. Among such common  questions of law and fact is whether Defendant has violated Federal and New York State statutory  obligations by failing to comply with the ADA, ADAAG, NYCHRL, and NYSHRL, such that all  physically disabled persons are afforded fair and equal access to any hotel owned or operated by  Defendant, and their online reservation systems.    19. The names and addresses of disabled individuals who have encountered non-compliance  as set forth herein, and who have been excluded from full and equal access to required accessibility  information regarding the Hotel is obtainable through traditional channels used to identify  members of any class; notice of this case, informing members of the Class that this case exists and  that he/she may be a member of the Class, can be delivered by U.S. or electronic mail, using  techniques and in a form of notice similar to those customarily used in class action litigation, and  can additionally be advertised by television, internet, radio, and other means of transmission that  are likely to reach members of the Class.   20. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the ADA, explaining that its purpose was to provide a  clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals  with disabilities and to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing such  discrimination, invoking the sweep of congressional authority in order to address the major areas  of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities to ensure that the Federal  government plays a central role in enforcing the standards set by the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(l)  - (4).    21. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. §12134(a), on September 15, 2010, the Department  of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (“DOJ”), published revised regulations for Title III of  the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Public accommodations, including places of lodging  were required to conform to these revised regulations on or before March 15, 2012.   23. In promulgating the new requirements, the Department of Justice made clear that  individuals with disabilities should be able to reserve hotel rooms with the same efficiency,  immediacy, and convenience as those who do not need accessible guestrooms. 28 C.F.R. Part 36,  Appx. A.    25. In addition,   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. Accordingly, Defendant is required to set forth specific accessible  features and not merely recite that a guestroom is “accessible” or “ADA” or list accessibility  features that may (or may not) be offered within a particular room.    26. For hotels in buildings constructed 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.   28. The Hotel is a place of public accommodation that owns and/or leases and operates a place  of lodging pursuant to the ADA. The Hotel is in a building constructed prior to the 1991 Standards.    29. The Website (and all other online reservation platforms used by the Hotel) allow  reservations for the Hotel to be taken online. The Defendant has control over information provided  to the public about the Hotel through the Website and/or other online platforms.     30. Prior to filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff visited the Website to learn about accessible features  of the Hotel, and to independently assess whether the Hotel is accessible to her, and whether she  could independently reserve an accessible room at the Hotel, in the same manner as those seeking  to reserve non-accessible rooms. Upon her visit, Plaintiff discovered that the Website does not  comply with the ADA and ADAAG.   33. The Website has a tab entitled “accessibility” at the bottom (strongly implying that  Defendant is aware that the ADA exists) but when selected, this webpage contains none of the  information (or lack of information) at issue in this case.    34. This is not intended to be an exclusive list, and Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the class,  brings this action to remediate all violations of the ADAAG found to exist upon the Website, and  upon all online reservation platforms used by the Hotel.     35. In addition to the list above, upon information and belief, Defendant may not effectively  (i) 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; (ii) 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; or (iii) 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. Discovery is required on these issues.    37. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and all other mobility-impaired individuals,  including the Class, by denying full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, services,  facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations offered on the Websites, due to the  continuing ADA and ADAAG violations as set forth above. Defendant has had eight (8) years to  bring the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) into compliance with the  ADAAG revisions, but has failed or refused to do so.     38. Modifying the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) to comply  with the ADA and ADAAG is accomplishable without undue burden or expense and is readily  achievable. But in any event, upon information and belief, the Website has been altered, updated,  and edited, after 2010, but not in a manner compliant with 2010 ADAAG standards.      39. Defendant will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and all other disabled individuals  who access the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) unless and until  Defendant modifies the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) to set forth  all required information, as set forth above.     40. Plaintiff and the Class are without an adequate remedy at law and are suffering irreparable  harm, and Plaintiff reasonably anticipates that she and the Class will continue to suffer this harm  unless and until Defendant is required to correct the ADA violations found upon the Websites (and  other online reservation platforms, as applicable), and to maintain the Websites (and other online  reservation platforms, as applicable), inclusive of the online reservation system, and  accompanying policies and procedures, in a manner that is consistent with and compliant with  ADA and ADAAG requirements.    42. Plaintiff re-avers the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein.    43. The New York State Human Rights Law provides:   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 … to the effect that any  of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any  such place shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person  on account of … disability … 3   44. The Website (and other online reservation platforms, as applicable) is a gateway to, and a part  of, the Hotel, which is a place of public accommodation as defined by the New York State  Human Rights Law.    45. Plaintiff and the Class have visited the Website (and other online reservation platforms, as  applicable), and encountered barriers made illegal by the ADA and ADAAG, and thus by the  New York State Human Rights Law.    47.  Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged and will continue to be damaged by this  discrimination as more fully set forth above and, in addition to injunctive relief, seek judgment  pursuant to N.Y. Exec. Law §297, including damages pursuant to §297(9) thereof.   48. Plaintiff re-avers the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein.    49. The New York City Human Rights Law provides:   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,  directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such  person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or  privileges thereof…to the effect that any of the accommodations,  advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place or provider  shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account  of …disability…4   50. Defendant is in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law by denying the Plaintiff  and the Class full access to all the accommodations, benefits, and services, available  appurtenant to the Hotel, as described above.      VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT   VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW  