2. Whether Defendant accepts guide dogs and, if so, if there are any charges associated with  the guide dogs, their policies with respect to guide dogs and if there are any rest areas for  guide dogs.   25.  Defendant owns and operates a hotel in New York. This location also offers  dining and entertainment options, including on-site restaurants, room service and lobby lounges.   26.  Defendant’s Website offers features to the public that should allow all consumers  to access the facilities and services that it offers about their hotel. The Website is heavily  integrated with their hotel, serving as their gateway.   28.  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 Defendant’s  Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   3. Whether the hotel provides a braille and/or large print menu for restaurants and/or room  service and, in the alternative, if they have trained staff to read the menu to blind or  vision-impaired guests.   30.  Due to the lack of information relating to the accessibility features of Defendant’s  hotel through the reservation system on the 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 in their hotel. 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 using the services that the hotel offer to the public because of the lack  of information on accessibility through the reservation system on the Website. Plaintiff intends to  visit Defendant’s hotel or book rooms in Defendant’s hotel in the future if the Plaintiff was able  to learn about the accessibility of Defendant’s hotel and guest rooms for blind and vision- impaired persons through the reservation system on their website and those accessibility features  meet the needs of the Plaintiff.   31.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website reservation system have deterred  Plaintiff from visiting Defendant’s physical locations, and enjoying them equal to sighted  individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find information on the Website reservation system  relating to the accessibility of the hotel and guest rooms for blind and visually-impaired people  and other important information, preventing Plaintiff from reserving a room at the hotel, staying  at the hotel and using the facilities of the hotel including restaurants and attending events.   33.  Through visiting the Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the lack of  information on accessibility features available on the reservation system on the Website that  result in making the services and facilities of the hotel inaccessible and independently unusable  by blind and visually-impaired people.   34.  Because simple compliance with the provisions of the ADA relating to providing  information about accessibility features of the hotel and the guest rooms on its Website  reservation system would provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal  access to the services and facilities at Defendant’s hotel, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has  engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including, but not limited to, the failure to provide  information on its Website reservation system sufficient to advise that the hotel is fully ADA  compliant, and for each accessible guest room, to  specify the room type, the type of accessible  facility in the room, and the communications features in the room.   35.  Defendant therefore use 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).   38.  If the ADA-required information is included on the Website reservation system,  Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually-impaired people could independently determine  through use of the Website if Defendant’s hotel and guest rooms are ADA compliant and if the  facilities described relating the facilities and communications equipment in guest rooms are  acceptable to the Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually-impaired people   39.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding  maintaining and operating its Website and the inclusion of information on the Website,  Defendant lacks a plan and policy reasonably calculated to include the ADA-required  information on the Website reservation system to make such information fully and equally  accessible to, and independently usable by, blind and other visually-impaired consumers.    4. Whether or not emergency exit signs are compliant with ADAAG1 requirements and  emergency evacuation plans and information are provided in braille and large print.   41.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will  continue to be unable to independently use the Website reservation system to obtain information  relating to ADA accessibility of the hotel and their guest rooms, violating their rights.  42.  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 to obtain the ADA-required  accessibility information 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 himself 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 to obtain the ADA- required information 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.    44.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 to obtain the ADA- required information 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.    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 have violated the ADA,  NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to include the ADA-required information on the Website  reservation system so individuals with disabilities can independently assess if Defendant’s hotel  or guest rooms meet the accessibility needs of the Plaintiff and 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 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.   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.  5. Whether or not all accessible signage complies with the requirements of the ADAAG.   50.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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).   52.  Defendant’s hotel is a place of public accommodation within the definition of  Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(A). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege, or  advantage of Defendant’s hotel. The Website is a service that is integrated with the Defendant’s  hotel and is a gateway thereto.   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).   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 ADA-required information on the Website reservation system, and,  as a result, 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 have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   58.  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.   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.”   6. Whether or not the stairs, escalators and elevators comply with ADAAG standards, such  as braille for floor numbers in the elevator and a verbal annunciator for each floor.    60.  Defendant’s physical hotel is located in the State of New York and constitute a  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 heavily integrated with these physical locations and is a gateway thereto.   61.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. The 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 include the  ADA-required information on the Website reservation system, causing the Website and the  services integrated with Defendant’s physical locations 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.   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 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 including  the ADA-required information on websites making such websites accessible to the blind and  visually impaired. Incorporating the basic components to make the Website reservation system  include the ADA-required information would neither fundamentally alter the nature of  Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   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, accommodations and/or  opportunities of Defendant’s Website and their 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 his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   7. Whether or not the hotel has removed or protected protruding objects which protrude  more than 4” into walkways and hallways such as drinking fountains, fire extinguishers,  and planters and if they provide cane detectable warnings for the underside of stairways.   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 himself and the New York City Sub-Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   75.  Defendant’s hotel is a place of public accommodation within the definition of  N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and the Website is a service that is integrated with their  establishments.   76.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates a physical  location in New York and the Website, making the Defendant a person within the meaning of  N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   77.  Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing to  update the Website and remove access barriers to its hotel by failing to include the ADA- required information on its reservation system, causing the services integrated with their 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.   78.  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).   8. Whether or not the guest rooms contain tactile and large print thermostat controls and  talking/large print clocks.   80.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   81.  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 the Website and their 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.   82.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   83.  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.   84.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   86.  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.   87.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that the Website does not  contain the ADA-required information on its reservation system denying blind customers the full  and equal access to the goods, services and facilities of the Website and by extension their  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.   88.  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 Website and Compliance with  Requirement to Describe Accessibility Features   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  