1. Whether Defendant’s employees and agents such as managers, security  personnel and other staff are trained to assist blind and vision-impaired guests  with basic needs such as: completing the hotel registration; learning about and  completing service requests like reviewing the hotel bill and charges; counting  and identifying currency; using a signature guide or template in conjunction  with their credit card; using lounge facilities, rest rooms; orienting guests to  hotel and guest room layouts; location of fire alarms, emergency exits and  equipment; heating and air conditioning controls; and TV remote controls   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.   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 Websites, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   28.  Defendant offers the commercial website https://freehandhotels.com/ to the  public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods  and services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations. The goods  and services offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to the following, which allow  consumers to: find information about hotel location and hours of operation and other goods  and services offered at the Defendant’s hotel.   29.  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 hotel. 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 hotel and the numerous goods, services, and benefits offered  to the public through the Website.   30.  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 Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   33.  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.    34.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s physical hotel location, and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals  because: Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of operation of Defendant’s  physical hotel on its Website and other important information, preventing Plaintiff from  visiting the locations, and access to various other goods and services such as finding  information about dining and entertainment options, and other goods and services offered  at the Defendant’s hotel.   35.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   37.  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 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.   38.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   39.  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 . . . their 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).   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.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired people could independently access goods and services, locate  Defendant’s hotel locations and hours of operation, and shop for and otherwise research  related information available via the Website.   42.  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.    44.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  Defendant’s Website and Compliance with  Requirement to Describe Accessibility Features   45.  Defendant owns and operates a hotel in New York. This hotel offers dining  and other goods and services offered at the Defendant’s hotel.   46.  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.   47.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, using Defendant’s Website  access to information through their reservation system relating to the availability of ADA  compliant rooms and handicap accessible features of the hotel, and to therefore specifically  deny the goods and services that are offered and integrated with Defendant’s hotel. Due to  Defendant’s failure and refusal to add information through their reservation system relating  to its accessibility for visually-impaired persons on their Website, Plaintiff and visually- impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant’s hotel  and the numerous goods, services, and benefits offered to the public at Defendant’s hotel.   49.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, Plaintiff was not able to determine  from the reservation system on the Website what ADA compliant features, if any, the hotel  offers and whether the guest rooms have handicap accessible facilities or communications  equipment in the guest rooms suitable to blind or visually-impaired persons.  As a result,  Plaintiff has been denied 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 Defendant’s physical location in New York State  by being unable to learn any information about the accessibility features of the hotel or its  guest rooms.  Defendant Must Include Information Relating to ADA Compliant Rooms  and Handicap Accessibility Features Through Its Website Reservation System   5. Whether or not all accessible signage complies with the requirements of the  51.  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 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 its dining and entertainment options and other goods and services offered at the  Defendant’s hotel.   52.  If the hotel and the Website reservation system were equally accessible to  all, Plaintiff could independently navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction  as sighted individuals do.   53.  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.   55.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   56.  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).   61.  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/or have been denied access to the  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.   62.  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/or have been denied access to the Website 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.    63.  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/or have been denied access to the Website  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.    65.  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, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers  on its Website and/or 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.   67.  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 their litigation.   68.  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.  69.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   70.  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).   71.  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.   73.  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).   74.  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).   76.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  77.  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.   78.  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.”   79.  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.   80.  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).   82.  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."   83.  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.”   85.  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 not accessible and does  not contain the ADA-required information on its reservation system making their hotel  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 that is inaccessible to blind class members; and/or  c.  failed to take actions to correct the lack of the ADA-required  information in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members  and/or;  d.  constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to blind  class members with knowledge of the discrimination.   86.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   88.  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.   89.  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.   90.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   91.  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.  92.  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.   93.  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.”   95.  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).   96.  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 and 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.   97.  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).   DECLARATORY RELIEF  105.  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.  106.  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 and that the  Website also 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.  107.  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.  Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  