Bronx Independent Living v. Metropolitan Transp.
Decision Date | 05 March 2019 |
Docket Number | 16 Civ. 5023 (ER) |
Citation | 358 F.Supp.3d 324 |
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 Transportation 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 |
Michelle Anne Caiola, Rebecca Catherine Serbin, Rebecca Juliet Rodgers, Disabilities Right Advocates, New York, NY, Sid Wolinsky, Disability Rights Advocates, Berkley, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Eric Douglas Witkin, Shawn Matthew Clark, Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, NY, for Defendants.
Before the Court are cross motions for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs—two non-profit advocacy organizations and two disabled individuals who represent a class of similarly situated individuals—move for summary judgment seeking a determination that the replacement of the stairways at the Middletown Road Subway Station in the Bronx triggered certain accessibility requirements under 49 C.F.R. § 37.43(a)(1). Defendants, Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA"), the New York City Transit Authority ("NYCTA"), and their chief executives move for summary judgment seeking a determination that the applicable regulation is 49 C.F.R. § 37.43(a)(2), not (a)(1). The distinction matters because under § 37.43(a)(1), Defendants must make certain alterations to increase accessibility no matter the cost, while under § 37.43(a)(2), Defendants must make such alterations only if doing so would not be disproportionately expensive.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
Millions of New Yorkers rely on the subway to get to work, school, and their friends and family. To access the subway, riders must go through one of New York City's 472 subway stations. Middletown Road Station is one such station. Defs.' Responses ¶ 1. It is located in the Bronx along the IRT Pelham Line and serves the 6 train. Defs.' Responses ¶ 1. Middletown Road Station is an elevated station; to board a train, riders must climb one set of stairs to reach a mezzanine area and buy a ticket, then climb a second set of stairs to reach the train platforms. Defs.' Responses ¶ 2. This path is the only means by which users may board a train at the Station, as no elevators are available. Defs.' Responses ¶ 3.
In 2003, NYCTA began planning renovations for the station in order to bring it to a "state of good repair," as required under Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulations. Pls.' Responses ¶ 26. These renovations were be part of a larger project to renovate nine elevated stations along the IRT Pelham Line, from Whitlock Avenue Station at the southern end to Buhre Avenue Station at the northern end. Pls.' Responses ¶ 28. The project design phase for the Middletown Road Station renovations was completed by an NYCTA design team in 2007. Pls.' Responses ¶ 29.
Defendants submitted the design documents and the project master plan to the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") in November 2007 as part of their request for federal grant assistance with the project. Pls.' Responses ¶ 29. The FTA reviews grant applications for, among other things, compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). See Federal Transit Administration, Tips for ADA Compliance (Apr. 22, 2014).1 The FTA may only award grant assistance to projects that have been certified as ADA-compliant. See Federal Transit Administration, FTA Fiscal Year 2018 Certifications and Assurances.2 The project master plan and design documents submitted to the FTA included the scope of the intended renovations. The master plan did not include plans for the installation of elevators at the Middletown Road Station. Pls.' Responses ¶ 31. In fact, no station on the Pelham Line slated for renovations included the installation of any elevators. Pls.' Responses ¶¶ 31, 32.
In 2008, Defendants withdrew their request for FTA funding for the northernmost four of the nine planned Pelham Line stations, including the Middletown Road Station, intending instead to pursue the renovations as part of their 2010-2014 capital plan.3 Pls.' Responses ¶ 33. In August 2011, Defendants determined that they would limit the scope of the renovations at these northernmost four stations, relabeling each from a "rehabilitation project" to a "renewal project." Pls.' Responses ¶ 35. The revised scope of work for the Middletown Road Station included, among other changes, the repair and replacement of the mezzanine's steel framing; the replacement of floors, walls, railings, and platforms; the installation of new lighting on the mezzanine and platforms; repainting; and the replacement of the street-to-mezzanine and mezzanine-to-platform staircases. Pls.' Responses ¶ 37. The revised scope of work did not provide for the installation of elevators. Pls.' Responses ¶ 40.
In March 2012, Defendants resubmitted to the FTA their request for federal funds for the Middletown Road Station renovations, now more limited in scope. Pls.' Responses ¶ 36. Defendants resubmitted funding requests for the other three northernmost stations as well. Pls.' Responses ¶ 36. The FTA granted funding for each station except the Middletown Road Station. Pls.' Responses ¶ 40.
Renovation work on Middletown Road Station took place over a seven-month period that began in October 2013 and ended in May 2014. Defs.' Responses ¶ 4. The station was closed during this time. Defs.' Responses ¶ 5. As part of the renovations, Defendants completely replaced the staircases, bringing them into a "state of good repair" as defined under DOT guidelines. Defs.' Responses ¶¶ 17, 18. Defendants also made various renovations to the mezzanine and platform floors, reconstructing platform edges, replacing concrete platforms, and installing new lighting. Pls.' Responses ¶ 37.
This action was filed on June 28, 2016. Doc. 1. On March 13, 2018 the United States filed a complaint-in-intervention. Doc. 66.
Summary judgment is only appropriate where the "materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, [and] other materials" show "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)–(c). "An issue of fact is ‘genuine’ if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Senno v. Elmsford Union Free Sch. Dist. , 812 F.Supp.2d 454, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing SCR Joint Venture L.P. v. Warshawsky , 559 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2009) ). A fact is "material" if it might affect the outcome of the litigation under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the Court must " ‘construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant.’ " Brod v. Omya, Inc. , 653 F.3d 156, 164 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Williams v. R.H. Donnelley, Corp. , 368 F.3d 123, 126 (2d Cir. 2004) ).
This provision is known as the "Accessible Alterations Rule."
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Am. Council of the Blind of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y.
...in Action of Penn. v. Se. Penn. Transp. Auth. , 635 F.3d 87, 89–90 (3d Cir. 2011) (involving three subway stations); Bronx Indep. Living Servs. , 358 F. Supp. 3d at 330 (involving one subway station; defendant did not contest whether the renovation constituted an "alteration" under the ADA)......
-
Forsee v. Metro. Transp. Auth.
...which is currently the subject of another litigation before this Court. Id. ¶¶ 176-177; see also Bronx Indep. Living Servs. v. Metro. Trans. Auth., 358 F. Supp. 3d 324 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). The Lease Agreement The lease agreement between the City and the NYCTA regarding the subway system (the "L......
-
Bronx Indep. Living Servs. v. Metro. Transp. Auth.
...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......