21.  Defendant  operates  42.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 facilities and  services offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory  period.   44.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 facilities  and services offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory  period.   45.  Common BIOREFERENCEions 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 goods, 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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations  to people with visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   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.   48.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because  fact and legal BIOREFERENCEions common to Class Members predominate over  BIOREFERENCEions 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.   49.  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.  50.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every  allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   52.  Defendant’s laboratories are public accommodations within the definition of Title  III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege,  or advantage of Defendant’s laboratories. The Website is a service that is integrated  with these locations.   53.  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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an  entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   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).   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 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. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   57.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, reBIOREFERENCEs relief as set forth below.  58.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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.”   61.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and operates  its physical locations and Website. 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 update or remove  access barriers to its Website, causing its 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, facilities  and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   63.  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".   65.  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’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 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.   67.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   69.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of New York State Human Rights  Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   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 herself and the New York State Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   74.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y. Civil  Rights Law § 41.   76.  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 her 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’s New York State physical locations are professional laboratories of a  health care provider and public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil  Rights Law § 40-c(2). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of  Defendant and its Website is a service that is by and integrated with these  establishments.   78.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and operates  its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   79.  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 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,  facilities and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   81.  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 ...”   82.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   83.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against  Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class Members on the basis of disability are  being directly or indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations,  advantages, facilities and privileges thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing  regulations.   84.  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.  85.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York City Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   87.  Defendant’s locations are professional laboratories of a health care provider and  public accommodations within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9),  and its Website is a service that is integrated with its establishments.   88.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its physical  locations in the City of New York and its Website, making it a person within the  meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   89.  Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing to  update or remove access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services  integrated with its 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.   90.  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 BIOREFERENCEion provided that the disability is known or should have been  known by the covered entity.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(15)(a).   92.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   93.  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 its Website and its  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.   94.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   95.  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.   97.  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.  98.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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.  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 prospective patients the full and equal access  to the goods, services and facilities of its Website and by extension its physical  locations, which Defendant owns, operations 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.  100.  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 Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 1281 et seq.  