American Council of the Blind of New York, Inc. v. City of New York

Background

The plaintiffs were the American Council of the Blind of New York, Inc., Michael Golfo, and Christina Curry, representing a certified class of blind and low-vision New York City pedestrians with disabilities who use signalized pedestrian intersections. They sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Transportation, the Mayor in his official capacity, and the DOT Commissioner in her official capacity.

The plaintiffs alleged that the City generally provided crossing information only visually, even though sighted pedestrians received visual walk and do-not-walk signals. Accessible pedestrian signals, or APS, provide crossing information through sounds, spoken messages, and vibrations. At the time relevant to the motion, APS were installed at only 443 of approximately 13,200 signalized intersections, although the opinion also noted a later representation that the number had risen to about 700.

The plaintiffs claimed that this lack of non-visual information denied blind and low-vision pedestrians meaningful access to the City’s signalized intersections and pedestrian grid. They also claimed that the City violated federal disability law when it installed new traffic signals or made certain changes to existing crossings without adding APS.

Meaningful-access claims

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibit covered public entities from denying qualified people with disabilities meaningful access to their services, programs, or activities. The court held that the City’s operation and maintenance of signalized intersections and the pedestrian grid constituted such a service or activity.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on liability under both statutes. It held that providing crossing information in a visual format at more than 95 percent of the City’s signalized intersections denied blind and low-vision pedestrians meaningful access. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs did not need to show complete exclusion; the dangers, delays, reliance on strangers, longer routes, additional transportation costs, and avoidance of some parts of the City were sufficient to show a major access barrier.

The court also held that the City had not established an undue financial or administrative burden defense. The City had not made the required high-level written determination considering available resources, and the evidence it offered did not establish that providing meaningful access would impose such a burden. The court left the number and placement of additional APS, and the cost and details of relief, for the remedy stage.

New construction and alterations

The court separately considered claims that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require accessible features when public entities construct or alter facilities. It held that traffic and pedestrian crossing signals are facilities under the relevant regulations.

The court ruled that claims based on challenged alterations completed before June 27, 2015 were barred by the applicable three-year limitations period. It also rejected the City’s argument that its newer APS policy made the remaining claims moot. The policy did not remedy past violations, and the City had not shown that the alleged violations could not reasonably recur or that their effects had been completely and permanently eliminated.

The court denied summary judgment on claims involving signal lens replacements because the record indicated that those replacements occurred before the limitations period. It also denied summary judgment on claims involving leading pedestrian intervals and exclusive pedestrian phases. Those changes required only software updates, and the record did not show that they were substantial enough to qualify as alterations under the governing legal standard.

The court denied summary judgment on claims involving Capital Street Projects and Street Improvement Projects. The record did not identify which projects involved relevant signal work, what work occurred at particular intersections, or whether the work qualified as an alteration or new construction. This denial was without prejudice to a renewed motion focused on particular intersections.

The court granted summary judgment on liability for the claim involving new traffic signals installed without APS after June 27, 2015. It held that newly installed pedestrian signals were newly constructed facilities and had to be readily accessible to blind pedestrians under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.

New York City Human Rights Law

The court also granted summary judgment on liability under the New York City Human Rights Law. The plaintiffs’ claim under that law concerned the lack of APS throughout the City, rather than the separate claims about particular alterations or construction projects. Because the court found that the lack of APS violated the federal statutes, and the City acknowledged that the City law’s protections were at least as broad in this respect, the court found liability under the New York City Human Rights Law as well.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to liability in principal part. It granted summary judgment on the meaningful-access claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, on the claims concerning new traffic signals installed without APS after June 27, 2015, and on the corresponding New York City Human Rights Law claim. It otherwise denied the motion, including without prejudice as to the claims involving Capital Street Projects and Street Improvement Projects. The case proceeded to a remedy stage and to consideration of any renewed motions on the unresolved claims; the court did not decide the remedy in this opinion.