Center for Independence of the Disabled New York (CIDNY) v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) (S.D.N.Y.)

This case challenges the MTA’s failure to maintain the few elevators that exist in New York City’s subway stations. DRA has resolved two separate other cases against the MTA through an agreement for the agency to install elevators in at least 95% of subway stations system-wide over the coming years.

In April 2017, DRA filed a class action lawsuit against the New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) and the Metropolitan Transit Authority (“MTA”) for failing to ensure programmatic accessibility of the City’s subway system for people with mobility disabilities by not maintaining the already limited number of stations’ elevators, causing constant, unplanned elevator outages that leave riders who rely on elevators stranded. Defendants further compound these issues by frequently failing to inform the public about outages, by not providing adequate signage to describe alternate accommodations and/or accessible routes, and by not ensuring alternate transportation for people who cannot use the subway unless elevators are functional.

In 2020, the trial court granted the MTA’s motion for summary judgment, which argued that the system’s elevator uptime rates were sufficient under the ADA. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the trial court’s ruling in 2021 and sent the case back to the trial court. Specifically, the Second Circuit held that, under the proper federal and local law standard, there is at least a genuine factual dispute about whether the MTA’s frequent elevator outages deny New Yorkers with mobility disabilities a meaningful opportunity to use the subway system. However, the Second Circuit also said that the MTA might be entitled to summary judgment if they could demonstrate that they provide “plainly reasonable” accommodations during elevator outages.

Following the Second Circuit’s opinion, the parties took discovery regarding the adequacy of the accommodations the MTA claims to provide riders with mobility disabilities during elevator outages. In 2023, Defendants renewed their motion for summary judgment, arguing that they provide reasonable accommodations during elevator outages. Plaintiffs have opposed this motion by showing how ineffective or non-existant the MTA’s supposed accommodations actually are.

In May 2024, Judge Daniels held a hearing on Defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment, in which they argued that Plaintiffs’ case fails because the MTA reasonably accommodates people with mobility disabilities during elevator outages. Plaintiffs argued that the court should deny Defendants’ motion because the effectiveness of these supposed accommodations is heavily in dispute.

In August 2024, Judge Daniels denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. While he ruled that some accommodations were adequate under the law, he found that the MTA had not provided enough evidence for him to determine that  its current elevator outage notifications or its training of MTA employees were enough to accommodate riders with disabilities who confront elevator outages. The case is now headed to trial.

DRA’s ultimate goal is to ensure that the Defendants meaningfully address the problem by instituting a comprehensive remedial scheme that will lead to regular operation of usable and sanitary elevators and to provision of adequate notice and effective alternative accommodations when outages do occur.