Bronx Indep. Living Servs. v. Metro. Transp. Auth.
| Decision Date | 29 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 16 Civ. 5023 (ER) |
| Parties | BRONX INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES, a nonprofit organization; DISABLED IN ACTION OF METROPOLITAN NEW YORK, a nonprofit organization; ROBERT HARDY, an individual; and RODOLFO DIAZ, an individual; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a public benefit corporation; THOMAS PRENDERGAST, in his official capacity as chairman and chief executive officer of the Metropolitan Transit Authority; NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, a public benefit corporation; and VERONIQUE HAKIM, in her official capacity as president of the New York City Transit Authority, Defendants. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
RAMOS, D.J.
Despite the fact that more than 100,000 Bronx residents live with a mobility disability, none of the ten subway stations along the four miles between the Pelham Bay Park and Hunts Point Avenue Stations on the 6 subway line are wheelchair accessible. From October 2013 until May 2014, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA") and the New York City Transit Authority ("NYCTA") engaged in an approximately $26.6 million renovation of the Middletown Road Station located along that stretch but did not add elevators to provide wheelchair accessibility.1 Not-for-profit organizations working with disabled New Yorkers, Bronx Independent Living Services ("BILS") and Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York ("DIA"), and their constituents Robert Hardy and Rodolofo Diaz, bring this class action against the MTA, NYCTA and their chief executives (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging that renovating the Middletown Road Station without making it wheelchair accessible violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). In 2018, the United States intervened also alleging violation of the ADA. In 2019, this Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the scope of the work performed at the station triggered an obligation under the ADA to alter it to the "maximum extent feasible" to make it "readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs" regardless of cost. BILS v. Metro. Transit Auth., 358 F. Supp. 3d 324, 328-30 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing 49 C.F.R. § 37.43(a)(1)). Now pending before this Court are Plaintiffs' and Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, both motions are DENIED.
The Middletown Road Station is an elevated stop on the 6 subway line located at the intersection of Westchester Avenue, Middletown Road, and Appleton Avenue in the Bronx. Doc. 165 at ¶ 7. Riders enter the Middletown Road Station using stairways located on either side of Westchester Avenue, which lead to an elevated mezzanine at the center of the station. Doc. 172 at ¶ 3. The mezzanine hangs from girders2 that support the subway tracks running above it. Id. From the mezzanine, riders purchase fares and enter turnstiles or doors to reach the stairways leading to the northbound and southbound platforms. Id. The Middletown Road Station, which was built in 1919 and became operational in 1920, does not have any elevators. Id. at ¶ 2; Doc. 165 at ¶ 9. To become accessible, the Middletown Road Station would require three elevators: one from the street level to the mezzanine, and one from the mezzanine to each of the northbound and southbound platforms. Doc. 165 at ¶ 19.
In 2003, Defendants made initial plans to renovate the Middletown Road Station as part of a larger renovation project that included eight other elevated stations located between the Whitlock Avenue and the Buhre Avenue Stations on the Pelham Line, none of which included elevators. Doc. 172 at ¶¶ 4, 6, 8. In November 2007, Defendants applied to the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA")3 for federal funding for the renovation project. Doc. 172 at ¶¶ 6-7. Defendants' application included its master plans for those nine stations, which still did not include elevators. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. Between 2007 and 2012, Defendants discussed the scope of theproject during quarterly meetings, triennial reviews, and program meetings with the FTA. Id. at ¶ 7. In 2008, Defendants withdrew their request for federal funding for four of the nine stations in their application, including the Middletown Road Station. Id. at 11.
Defendants reduced the scope of the planned renovations to those four stations in August 2011 and resubmitted a request for funding to the FTA in March 2012 (the "Pelham Project"). Id. at ¶¶ 13-14. On October 25, 2012, the FTA asked for a narrative analysis and supporting documentation showing why installing elevators at each of the four stations in the Pelham Project would be infeasible. Id. at ¶ 23. On April 23, 2013, Defendants submitted an infeasibility study for the Pelham Project. Id. at ¶ 24. With respect to the Middletown Road Station, Defendants represented that installing an elevator from the street to the mezzanine at the northeast corner of Appleton Avenue and Westchester Avenue would require a bridge connecting the elevator to the station. Id. at ¶ 25. Defendants also explained that an elevator to the northbound platform would block egress from the Middletown Road Station, and that an elevator to the southbound platform would impede traffic turning on Appleton Avenue and its pit would reduce clearance on the street below. Id. at ¶ 26.
Between July 19, 2013 and April 14, 2014, the FTA and Defendants corresponded regarding the infeasibility study. Id. at ¶ 27. Almost simultaneously, from October 5, 2013 until May 4, 2014, Defendants closed the Middletown Road Station for extensive renovations. Doc. 165 at ¶ 10. Defendants repaired and replaced structural steel framing for the mezzanine and the concrete platforms, replaced floors, walls, ceilings, facilities and equipment as needed, including the roof of the mezzanine, the street and platform stairs and their canopies, railings, windscreens, and corroded steel. Doc. 172 at ¶ 15. Defendants also reconstructed the platform edges, including new areas for disabled individuals to board trains, installed new mezzanine andplatform lighting, speakers, bird deterrent features, help points, and fire alarm systems, painted, and incorporated artwork. Id. Defendants also added ADA-compliant handrails, toilets, water coolers, locker rooms, and telephones, installed tactile warning strips on platform edges and boarding areas for disabled individuals, and replaced existing signs with signs that included Braille. Id. at ¶ 16. These renovations admittedly required modification and replacement of some load-bearing structures, and the alteration of five mezzanine floor girders. Doc. 165 at ¶¶ 17-18. No elevators were installed. Id. at ¶ 21. The renovations cost $26,580,235.19. Id. at ¶ 10. On July 8, 2014, the FTA informed Defendants that the Middletown Road Station was not compliant with the ADA. Doc. 172 at ¶ 30. Ultimately, the FTA withheld funding for the Middletown Road Station, but provided funding for rest of the stations in the Pelham Project. Id. at ¶ 33.
On June 28, 2016, Plaintiffs BILS, DIA, Hardy, and Diaz filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants alleging violation of the ADA, RA, and NYCHRL. Doc. 1. BILS is a nonprofit independent living center that provides services for, and advocates on behalf of, disabled individuals to help them live as independently as possible. Doc. 165 at ¶¶ 22-23. DIA is a civil rights organization run by people with disabilities who work to end discrimination against people with disabilities. Id. at ¶¶ 29-30. Hardy and Diaz are both Bronx residents with mobility disabilities. Docs. 61 at ¶¶ 2, 6; 62 at ¶¶ 2-3. Hardy is an elected member of DIA's board and Diaz was formerly employed by BILS. Docs. 61 at ¶ 3; 62 at ¶ 7. Together, Plaintiffs represent a class of all persons with mobility disabilities who cannot currently use the Middletown Road Station because of accessibility barriers and who would use the station if it were made accessible. Doc. 84 at 2. On February 23, 2017, Plaintiffs amended the complaint.Doc. 35. On March 13, 2018, the United States intervened alleging that the MTA and NYCTA violated the ADA. Doc. 66. On April 25, 2018, the Court certified the class. Doc. 84.
On March 5, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and denied Defendants' cross-motion for partial summary judgment. BILS, 358 F. Supp. 3d at 326. Plaintiffs argued that ADA-implementing regulation 49 C.F.R. § 37.43(a)(1) applied to Defendants' renovations at the Middletown Road Station, which requires "alterations to increase accessibility no matter the cost," whereas Defendants argued that § 37.43(a)(2) applied, which only requires alterations "if doing so would not be disproportionately expensive." Id. The Court found that Defendants' renovation of the Middletown Road Station "altered the station 'in a way that affects or could affect its usability'" and therefore Defendants were obligated to make the station accessible "'to the maximum extent feasible,' regardless of cost" pursuant to § 37.43(a)(1). Id. at 329-31 (citing Roberts v. Royal Atl. Corp., 542 F.3d 363, 371 (2d Cir. 2008)). Although the Court "agree[d] with Defendants that § 37.43(a)(2) also arguably applies" because an area serving a primary function had been altered, it denied Defendants' cross-motion because Defendants had requested that the Court hold § 37.43(a)(1) inapplicable. Id.
On May 11, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. Doc. 152. On July 10, Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment and opposed Plaintiffs' motion. Doc. 162. In their moving papers, Defendants challenge Plaintiffs' standing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial