OPINION & ORDER Plaintiffs Richard Gleason and Mary Gleason (“Plaintiffs”), initiated this action on May 31, 2023, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794 et seq., 42 U.S.C. §1983, the New York State Executive Law 15 §296 et seq. (“NYSHRL”), as well as New York state law claims of unlawful taking/adverse possession without compensation against Defendants the County of Putnam (“Putnam”), the Town of Carmel (“Carmel”), McLaren Engineering (“McLaren”) and John and Jane Does 1-20 (“Does”) (together, with the County of Putnam, the Town of Carmel, and McLaren Engineering, the “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1, the “Complaint.”) Presently before the Court is McLaren’s Motion seeking to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims asserted against it and Defendants Putnam and Carmel’s crossclaims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6). (ECF No. 34.) For the following reasons, Defendant McLarens’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. BACKGROUND The following facts are derived from the Complaint and are taken as true and constructed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff at this stage. Plaintiffs are octogenarians with alleged disabilities residing on Farview Road in Carmel, Putnam County, New York. (Compl. 4.) On May 1, 2023, the Putnam County Highways & Facilities announced the Drewville Road bridge replacement project (“the Project”). (Id. 25.) Putnam stated the bridge was in poor condition and was to be replaced in the same location. (Id.). Drewville Road would be closed until the replacement structure was finalized. (Id.). McLaren served as Putnam’s Design Engineers. (Id.). Putnam and McLaren created a detour route for cars, along with a separate truck detour, while Drewville Road was closed. (Id.). Carmel was to provide additional enforcement within construction and detour areas. (Id.). Fairview Road has a “steep incline, dangerous curve with no road markings.” (Id. 5.) Allegedly, since the “commencement of the Drewville Bridge Project” Fairview Road “has been inundated with both commercial and non commercial vehicle traffic traveling in an aggressive manner and in excess of the speed limit.” (Id. 5.) Plaintiffs were able to walk after the detour scheme was implemented but decided not to do so any longer after “several close calls with traffic” allegedly “created by the detour.” (Id. 16.) Plaintiffs continue to drive after the detour was created, but allege they are “unable to safely exit and enter their driveway while operating their motor vehicle.” (Id. 17.) Plaintiffs allege that in previous attempts to exit their driveway they were “forced to back down their driveway due to excessive high speed traffic” thus “caus[ing] plaintiff to be late for a medical appointment” and to “call for alternative transportation.” (Id. 18.) Plaintiffs assert that the detour and the alleged lack of enforcement limits their “entry and egress to and from their residence.” (Id. 28.) The detour allegedly restricts Plaintiffs’ ability to “enter and exit the streets where they reside or need to reach businesses and other places necessary for their independent daily living.” (Id. 29.) The Project’s detour plan was supposed to limit access to Fairview Road to residential traffic and emergency vehicles but is supposedly used as a “high speed shortcut.” (Id. 36.) Plaintiffs assert their “numerous communications” to Putnam and Carmel officials “have been all but ignored,” with “[a]ny responses from Defendants [being] tantamount to lip-service.” (Id. 37.) Due to the “speeding vehicles recklessly transversing Fairview Road” Plaintiffs are “unable to safely enter and exit [their] driveway.” (Id. 38.) Plaintiffs state they have been denied “the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the County of Putnam and the Town of Carmel’s services, programs, or activities related to the provision of public streets.” (Id. 35.) Plaintiffs further state that they have “otherwise been discriminated against by defendants by reason of” their alleged disabilities. (Id.). Due to the alleged impact of the Project, Plaintiffs assert claims under the ADA, the RA, 42 U.S.C. §1983, NYSHRL, and New York state law claims for unlawful taking/adverse possession without compensation, and seek injunctive and declaratory relief, in addition to reasonable attorneys’ fees. (Id.
