Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. Plaintiffs-Appellants Moses Lugo and Cheryl Seaton sued Defendant-Appellee City of Troy, New York under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”). Plaintiffs, who use motorized wheelchairs, allege that Troy has failed to maintain pedestrian pathways that are accessible to them. After the parties completed discovery, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and Troy moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of standing or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The district court (Sharpe, J.) dismissed the complaint, finding the factual allegations therein inadequate to establish Plaintiffs’ standing. The district court did not consider, however, whether either party was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of standing based on the full summary-judgment record. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in resolving the issue of standing based on the pleadings rather than the full summary-judgment record. For the reasons explained below, we agree. We thus VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. JOHN WALKER, JR., C.J. Plaintiffs-Appellants Moses Lugo and Cheryl Seaton sued Defendant-Appellee City of Troy, New York under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”). Plaintiffs, who use motorized wheelchairs, allege that Troy has failed to maintain pedestrian pathways that are accessible to them. After the parties completed discovery, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and Troy moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for lack of standing or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The district court (Sharpe, J.) dismissed the complaint, finding the factual allegations therein inadequate to establish Plaintiffs’ standing. The district court did not consider, however, whether either party was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of standing based on the full summary-judgment record. On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in resolving the issue of standing based on the pleadings rather than the full summary-judgment record. For the reasons explained below, we agree. We thus VACATE the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs-Appellants Moses Lugo and Cheryl Seaton reside in Troy, New York. Due to mobility disabilities, Plaintiffs use motorized wheelchairs to navigate throughout Troy. Plaintiffs brought this action against Defendant-Appellee City of Troy for alleged violations of Title II of the ADA and §504 of the RA. Plaintiffs claim that Troy has discriminated against them by failing to keep Troy’s sidewalks and crosswalks accessible. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they sustained damages in two separate incidents while using their wheelchairs. On December 16, 2017, Mr. Lugo was traveling on Federal Street when his wheelchair slid into a large pothole in a crosswalk, causing him to be ejected from the wheelchair. During the winter of 2017-18, Ms. Seaton was crossing 4th Avenue near 114th Street when her wheelchair was damaged by hitting a large gap between the sidewalk and the road. Without identifying other specific locations, Plaintiffs further allege in their complaint that Troy’s sidewalks and crosswalks are generally inaccessible to them — and in violation of Title II of the ADA and §504 of the RA — because of poor maintenance and physical barriers and impediments, including missing or deficient curb cuts and abrupt changes in level and slope. As a result, Plaintiffs “cannot safely access areas of the City of Troy, including the core downtown area.” App’x at 15. After Plaintiffs filed their complaint, the parties conducted discovery for nearly two years. In depositions filed during this period, Plaintiffs testified to having encountered other specific accessibility obstacles around Troy. Mr. Lugo testified that he was forced by the inaccessible pedestrian pathways to turn around on sidewalks and to retrace his journey back to the beginning of the sidewalks so that he could travel along the street to his destination. Id. at 1424-25. Mr. Lugo also observed that a curb ramp in front of City Hall was “too small” and that a sidewalk near the Samaritan Hospital was inaccessible. Id. at 1425, 1430. Mr. Lugo noted that “[e]verything I have is near me. I don’t really have to travel too far…for my needs,” id. at 1426-27, but he also stated in an affidavit that “if I knew I would not face barriers that leave me stuck, damage my wheelchair, cause me physical harm, or force me to use the streets to get from one place to the other,” then he “would use the sidewalks and curb cuts throughout the City of Troy,” id. at 57. Ms. Seaton stated that accessing a restaurant and park in downtown Troy was a “disaster” because of missing ramps, id. at 1373-74, and that a ramp leading to a boutique in the same area was too steep, id. at 1395. She also complained of a missing ramp on Hoosick Street near two food pantries that she has frequented. Id. at 1375-76. Ms. Seaton also testified that she faced challenges accessing the 6th Avenue bus depot. Id. at 1387-90. Finally, she testified that she was forced to travel on the street whenever she did not know the state of the sidewalks on her route; otherwise, she risked having to turn around, retrace her path, and end up taking the street anyway — which would waste time and her wheelchair battery life. Id. at 1373, 1396-97. On the other hand, Plaintiffs testified that the two specific obstacles they identified in their complaint had been removed: the pothole on Federal Street was “patched…up” and the large gap on 4th Avenue “clear[ed].” Id. at 1372, 1421-22. During discovery, the parties also commissioned architectural consultants to survey the accessibility of dozens of sites throughout Troy. The parties and their respective experts reached competing conclusions as to various sites, including the sites that Plaintiffs deemed inaccessible in their complaint and deposition testimony. Although the parties agree that certain obstacles have been remedied, the parties dispute whether the expert reports show that these sites are now fully accessible and in compliance with ADA standards. See, e.g., Lugo v. City of Troy, New York, No. 19-cv-67, ECF No. 81, Attach. 1
