OPINION & ORDER This case involves a challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and related statutes to the accessibility of New York City’s signalized crosswalks to blind and low-vision pedestrians. On behalf of a certified class of blind and low-vision New York City pedestrians, plaintiffs — the American Council of the Blind of New York, Inc. (“ACBNY”), Michael Golfo, and Christina Curry — have sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Transportation (“DOT”), Mayor Bill de Blasio, and DOT Commissioner Polly Trottenberg (collectively, the “City” or “defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that the City has long failed to provide non-visual crossing information at the vast majority of its signalized intersections, i.e., those which provide visual crossing information to sighted pedestrians. Plaintiffs allege that the City’s failure to accommodate blind and low-vision pedestrians violates Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12132; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794(a) (“Rehabilitation Act”); and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-107(4)(a) (“NYCHRL”). With discovery complete, plaintiffs now move for summary judgment on all claims, but solely as to liability, without yet seeking a judicial remedy. Plaintiffs principally argue that (1) the absence of non-visual crossing information at the vast majority of the City’s signalized intersections denies blind and low-vision pedestrians meaningful access to those intersections and the pedestrian grid, in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the NYCHRL; and (2) the City’s failure to add non-visual crossing information on occasions when it has done construction at, or upgraded aspects of, the same intersections is also unlawful. For the following reasons, the Court grants plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion in principal part. Most significantly, the Court finds, on the undisputed facts, that the near-total absence at the City’s signalized intersections of crossing information accessible to blind and lowvision pedestrians denies such persons meaningful access to these intersections, in violation of all three statutes cited above. The Court also grants plaintiffs’ motion as to liability on their claim that the City’s failure to add non-visual street-crossing information at particular intersections at which it installed new traffic signals after June 27, 2015, violates the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The Court otherwise denies plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The case will now proceed promptly forward on two tracks: (1) to determine the remedy for the violations that have been established; and (2) to resolve plaintiffs’ open claims. I. Background A. Factual Background1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, among New York City’s non-institutionalized population, 205,212 persons are blind or have other vision difficulties. Atkinson Decl., Ex. 1 (“Census Community Survey”) at 2. That amounts to approximately 2.4 percent of the City’s population. See id. 1. The Parties Plaintiff ACBNY is a New York non-profit corporation. JSF 1. Its purpose 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 NYCHRL, including approximately 45 members in its Greater New York Chapter, which includes New York City. Id.
2, 20. 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. Because of her visual and auditory disabilities, she requires “tactile information” to use pedestrian signals. Id. She lives in the Bronx and regularly walks on New York City sidewalks to commute and as a part of her job as Executive Director of the Harlem Independent Living Center. Id.
