Am. Council of Blind of N.Y. Inc. v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 27 December 2021 |
| Docket Number | 18 Civ. 5792 (PAE) |
| Parties | AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND OF NEW YORK, INC., MICHAEL GOLFO, and CHRISTINA CURRY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York, and HENRY GUTMAN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Department of Transportation, [1] Defendants. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
On October 20, 2020, the Court entered summary judgment for plaintiffs-a class of blind and visually impaired persons-as to liability on their principal claims, which were brought against New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio, the New York City Department of Transportation ("DOT"), and DOT Commissioner Polly Trottenberg (collectively, "the City" or "defendants") under Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 etseq. ("ADA"); section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Rehabilitation Act"), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. ("NYCHRL").
The Court held that defendants had failed to afford such persons meaningful access to the City's overall pedestrian grid by failing to install Accessible Pedestrian Signal devices ("APS") at fully 96.6% of the City's 13, 200 signalized intersections, i.e., those which provide visual crossing information to sighted pedestrians. APS communicate information about the "Walk" and "Don't Walk" intervals at signalized intersections, in non-visual formats, to blind and low-vision pedestrians. The Court further held that the City had violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act with respect to the 425 intersections which, after June 27, 2015, it had signalized without installing APS.
The Court has since received extensive expert reports and factual submissions as to the appropriate remedy for these violations, and written advocacy on this point from the parties and the United States as an interested party. The Court also held a three-day hearing receiving expert testimony and argument as to the remedy.
This decision sets out the Court's rulings as to the remedy necessary to bring the City into prompt compliance with the above statutes. This remedy has multiple dimensions. In fashioning these, the Court has given due recognition, as required, to the City's asserted administrative and financial constraints.
Most centrally, the Court directs the City to have installed, by the end of 2031, APS at at least 10, 000 of its signalized intersections. That will entail APS installation at just over 9, 000 intersections during the next 10 years. The Court further directs the City to have installed, by the end of 2036, APS at all of its signalized intersections; however the City may move to adjourn this latter deadline upon a showing that the pedestrian grid has by then become meaningfully accessible to the blind and visually impaired. The Court further sets out annual APS installation targets that the City must meet en route to these goals, and identifies categories of signalized intersections at which the installation of APS must take priority, including based on the heightened safety risk that these crossings otherwise pose. Other components of the remedial plan address the process by which the City's compliance will be monitored and reported, and provide for judicial review, including to take account of changed circumstances.
This decision is in four parts. The first reviews in detail pertinent factual background- including the functionality of and purposes served by APS, the history and nature of New York City's pedestrian grid, and DOT's current APS policies and practices. The second reviews the history of this litigation, including the Court's decision largely granting plaintiffs' summary judgment motion as to liability, and the parties' submissions and arguments on the issues presented at the remedy stage. The third reviews the legal standards governing remedies in cases under the ADA and the sister statutes at issue. The fourth sets out the Court's rulings as to the parameters of the remedy necessary here.
At the outset, the Court reviews the factual context of this litigation, including the parties to it; the nature of the City's pedestrian grid; the hazards that blind pedestrians face in navigating that grid; how APS help such persons navigate the grid, including in the face of heightened risks presented by present-day traffic patterns and technologies; the incorporation of APS into that grid to date; the functional operation of APS and the process by which they are installed; and the approach that-before and during this litigation-DOT has taken to the APS installation process.
New York City has the highest population density of any major American city. JSF ¶ 9. Walking "is a major form of transportation in the city, and access to sidewalks is an important component of city life." Id. To allow pedestrians to safely navigate its sidewalks and traffic intersections, the City has installed roughly 120, 000 pedestrian control signals-i.e., devices informing pedestrians when to cross the street and when to wait, with an image of a mid-stride white stick figure indicating "Walk," and an upraised orange hand indicating "Don't Walk," id. ¶ 137-at, as of December 31, 2020, about 13, 430 of its 45, 000 intersections. Id. ¶¶11, 13; see also Def. Am. Plan at 11 (). By nature, however, those familiar, even iconic, signals are inaccessible to the blind.
APS are the acknowledged solution to this problem of inaccessibility. Primarily through auditory cues, including verbal and sound prompts, but also through tactile features, APS give blind pedestrians the information-which to sighted pedestrians is conveyed visually-as to when it is safe to cross the street, where it is safe to cross, and how to safely navigate to the other side of the intersection. See JSF ¶ 14; Pl. 56.1 ¶¶ 6, 34. APS thereby are essential safety features. They are vitally useful to blind pedestrians attempting to cross the City's busiest and most treacherous intersections-those apt to have been signalized.
As reviewed further below, APS have become all the more essential to blind pedestrians in recent years, as a result of projects that the City has undertaken to install specialized forms of visual signals at intersections, which choreograph the timing by which pedestrians and vehicles may each enter particular intersections. Although these reforms have made crossing intersections safer for sighted pedestrians, they have made it more complex and hence more dangerous for blind pedestrians to cross, in the absence of APS. See, e.g., JSF ¶¶ 146-50, 164-67; Tr. at 282-83; Atkinson Opp. Deck, Ex. 2 ("PASS Ltr.") at 1-2, Ex. 3 ("Bourquin Ltr.") at 3; Ex. 5 ("Jacobs Ltr.") at 1-2; Ex. 14 at 2-3.
This litigation began in 2018, when plaintiffs brought suit against the City, DOT, Mayor de Blasio, and Commissioner Trottenberg for their failure to install APS at more than a fraction (a few hundred) of the City's signalized intersections. Plaintiffs' core claim was that the City's failure to install APS made the pedestrian grid as a whole, and each signalized intersection that lacked APS, inaccessible to the blind. See Dkt. 1; JSF ¶¶ 11, 19, 138.
Plaintiff ACBNY is a New York non-profit corporation. JSF ¶ 1. Its mission is to "support and promote the educational, vocational and social advancement of people with vision disabilities." Id. Its members include individuals with vision disabilities within the meaning of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and the NYCHRL. These include approximately 45 members in its Greater New York Chapter, which includes New York City. Id. ¶¶ 2, 20. An estimated 2.4% of the City's population is blind or visually disabled.[3]
Plaintiff Christina Curry is deaf, legally blind, and uses a forearm crutch as a mobility aid. Id. ¶ 3. As a result, she cannot see traffic in intersections unless it is "very close," and cannot rely on visual street signals to cross the street. Id. ¶¶ 31, 35. Because of her visual and auditory disabilities, she requires tactile information to use pedestrian signals. Id. ¶31. She lives in the Bronx and regularly walks on New York City sidewalks to commute and as part of her job as Executive Director of the Harlem Independent Living Center. Id. ¶¶ 32-34, 36. She attests that during her frequent pedestrian travel throughout the City, she risks being hit by vehicles, fears for her life, is often grabbed by well-meaning pedestrians, and uses circuitous, sometimes costly, alternatives to walking to avoid such incidents-all because she cannot use the visual traffic signals available to sighted pedestrians. Id. ¶ 60; Curry Decl. ¶¶ 9-13.
Plaintiff Michael Golfo is a blind resident of Tarrytown, New York, who previously commuted to Manhattan daily for work and now walks on New York City sidewalks about once per week to visit his doctors and friends. JSF ¶¶ 63-64. As a result of his disability, he relies on his hearing and uses a guide dog to navigate City streets. Id. ¶ 65. Even with these aids, Mr. Golfo finds it difficult to traverse the City; on many occasions, he has nearly been hit by cars while crossing the street. Id. ¶ 74. Like Ms. Curry, Mr. Golfo often must rely on sighted persons to help him make such crossings. Id. ¶¶ 75-76. He also often uses expensive taxis or car services to navigate the City, or takes elongated routes to avoid difficult intersections. Id. ¶¶ 79-80.
Defendants the City of New York and DOT are responsible...
To continue reading
Request your trial