14.  Defendant owns and manages buildings throughout the United States,  including the building at issue, One Hundred Barclay, located at 100 Barclay Street, New  York, New York.  It sells within this building apartments with two or more bedrooms.   15.  Defendant’s Website is heavily integrated with this apartment building,  serving as its gateway. Through the Website, prospective tenants are, inter alia, able to:  learn information about the building, including its location, its history and building  amenities; learn about the neighborhood; search availabilities and view images and  floorplans of the apartments; learn about pricing, and contact the company.      16.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff Fischler and other blind or visually-impaired users access to its Website, thereby  denying the facilities and services that are offered and integrated with its apartment  buildings. Due to its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its Website, Plaintiff  Fischler and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access  to its apartment buildings and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits  offered to the public through its Website.   20.  Due to the inaccessibility of its Website, blind and visually-impaired  customers such as Plaintiff Fischler, 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 Website’s access barriers that Plaintiff Fischler encountered have caused a  denial of his full and equal access in the past, and now deter him on a regular basis from  accessing the Website. These access barriers have likewise deterred him from visiting  Defendant’s apartment building and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals.    21.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Fischler could  independently navigate it, learn about the neighborhood, learn about the building and its  amenities, and learn about available units, including their layout, features and location in  the building, as sighted users can.   22.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Fischler has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.    24.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   25.  Title III of the ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that  Plaintiff Fischler seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   27.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies on  maintaining and operating its Website, it lacks a plan and policy reasonably calculated to  make it fully and equally accessible to, and independently usable by, blind and other  visually impaired consumers.   28.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Fischler and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its  rights.   29.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining its Website and has generated significant revenue from the  Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making its Website  equally accessible to visually impaired customers.   31.  Plaintiff Fischler 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 the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of  goods and services offered in Defendant’s apartment building during the relevant  statutory period (“Class Members”).   32.  Plaintiff Fischler seeks to certify a State of New York 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 the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s apartment building during the  relevant statutory period (“New York Subclass Members”).   33.  Plaintiff Fischler 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 the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s apartment building during the  relevant statutory period (“New York City Subclass Members”).   35.  Plaintiff Fischler’s claims are typical of the Class Members, New York  Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members: they are all severely visually  impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has violated Title III of the ADA,  NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on its Website so it  can be independently accessible to the visually impaired individuals.   36.  Plaintiff Fischler will fairly and adequately represent and protect the Class  and Subclasses’ interests because he has retained and is represented by counsel  competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and because he has no  interests antagonistic to the Class or Subclasses. 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 and Subclasses, making appropriate both  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses.   38.  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.   39.   Plaintiff Fischler, individually and on behalf of the Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   40.  Title III of the ADA prohibits “discriminat[ion] 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).   41.  Defendant’s apartment building is a public accommodation under Title III  of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). The Website is a service, privilege, or advantage of  the apartment building. The Website is a service that is integrated with the building.   42.  Under Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to deny  individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   44.  Under 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).   45.  These acts violate Title III of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated  thereunder. Plaintiff Fischler, who is a member of a protected class of persons under Title  III of 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, he has been  denied full and equal access to the Website, 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.    47.  Plaintiff Fischler, individually and on behalf of the New York Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   48.  Defendant’s State of New York apartment building constitutes a sales  establishment and public accommodation under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). The Website is  a service, privilege or advantage of that building. The Website is a service that is by and  integrated with this apartment building.   49.  Defendant is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its   apartment building in the State of New York and the Website. Defendant is a “person”  within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   50.  Defendant is violating the NYSHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its   apartment building 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. N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296(2)(a), 296(2)(c)(i),  296(2)(c)(ii).   52.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the class because of a disability, violating the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2), in  that Defendant has:  a.  Constructed and maintained a Website that is inaccessible to 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.   53.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff Fischler and New York Subclass Members 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 its New York apartment  building 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 New York Subclass Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   55.  Plaintiff Fischler, individually and on behalf the New York City Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   56.  Defendant’s New York City apartment building is a sales establishment  and public accommodation under the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its  Website is a service that is integrated with this establishment.   57.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its New  York City apartment building and its Website, making it a person under N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-102(1).   58.  Defendant is violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its New  York City apartment building 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. N.Y.C. Admin. Code  §§ 8-107(4)(a), 8-107(15)(a).   60.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Fischler and the New York City Subclass Members because  of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of its Website and its establishment  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 the New  York City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   61.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Fischler seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination, compensatory damages, civil penalties and  fines for each offense, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§  8-120(8), 8-126(a).  62.  Plaintiff Fischler, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   64.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate now in order that each  of the parties may know its respective rights and duties and act accordingly.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant, Its Website And Its Website’s Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.  