American Council of the Blind of New York, Inc. v. City of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-05792
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In American Council of the Blind v. City of New York, Judge Engelmayer reported progress installing accessible pedestrian signals and arranged a conference about remaining issues.
The order concerns blind and visually impaired people who use New York City’s pedestrian network, as well as the City officials and transportation personnel responsible for installing accessible pedestrian signals.
What happened
In American Council of the Blind of New York, Inc. v. City of New York, the court reviewed the City’s first annual report on its efforts to make New York City’s pedestrian network meaningfully accessible to blind and low-vision people. Earlier decisions had found the City liable under federal and state anti-discrimination laws and required a long-term plan for installing accessible pedestrian signals.
The City was required to install 400 accessible pedestrian signals in 2022 but installed 494. The report said the signals were widely distributed, priority locations were addressed, contractors had increased, and funding was secured through at least 2026. It also reported that the City appeared positioned to meet future installation targets.
Judge Engelmayer praised the City’s progress and the independent monitor’s work, while noting that the monitor’s report identified continuing challenges and areas for improvement. The court arranged an informal conference with the monitor, a City transportation official, and plaintiffs’ counsel to discuss those issues, and revised the case caption to reflect changes in the named officials and plaintiffs.
The detailed version
- American Council of the Blind of New York, Inc. v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-05792
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 6, 2023
Background
In an earlier decision, the court found New York City liable for violating federal and state anti-discrimination laws by failing to make the City’s pedestrian grid meaningfully accessible to blind or low-vision people. In a later decision, the court ordered remedial measures, including a requirement that the City install accessible pedestrian signals—signals that provide information for pedestrians who cannot rely on visual signals—at a pace resulting in 10,000 signalized intersections equipped by the end of 2031.
The court later entered an implementing remedial order. At the parties’ recommendation, it appointed Andrew W., Schilling, Esq., as an independent monitor to report neutrally on the City’s progress. The monitor filed a first annual report covering 2022.
Progress Reported
The City’s 2022 target was 400 accessible pedestrian signals. According to the monitor’s report, the City’s Department of Transportation, directly and through contractors, installed 494—94 more than required, or 23.5% above the target. The installations were widely distributed among the boroughs and within them. The City also made substantial progress at locations the remedial order identified for priority, including intersections that had been the subject of public requests and intersections with signal-timing mechanisms that could present special hazards without accessible signals.
The report was encouraging about future work. The remedial order set targets of 500 installations in 2023, 700 in 2024, and 900 in each of 2025 and 2026. The City had tripled the number of contractors retained for the work and had secured funding for required installations through at least 2026.
Court’s Action
The court reviewed the report and praised the City’s progress, the public servants and professionals involved, the Department of Transportation’s deputy commissioner for traffic operations, and the independent monitor. The court also noted that the report identified ongoing challenges and areas for improvement as implementation continued.
The court arranged an informal conference with the monitor, the deputy commissioner, and plaintiffs’ counsel to review the remaining challenges and specific issues raised in the report. The court also revised the caption to reflect that Eric Adams and Ydanis Rodriguez then held the offices previously held by Bill de Blasio and Polly Trottenberg, and that Christina Curry was no longer participating as a plaintiff. This order was an implementation and monitoring action; it did not announce a new decision on the City’s underlying liability.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.