Opinion
03 Civ. 10329 (RWS).
February 23, 2007
KENNETH L. STEWART, Plaintiff Pro Se, New York, NY.
NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Attorneys for Defendant, Brooklyn, NY, By: SHAWN M. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
OPINION
The defendant, New York City Transit Authority (the "TA" or the "Defendant"), has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, F. R. Civ. P., to dismiss the complaint of plaintiff pro se, Kenneth L. Stewart ("Stewart" or the "Plaintiff"), alleging that the TA has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (the "ADA"). For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
Prior Proceedings
Stewart, who is legally blind, commenced this litigation on December 31, 2003, by filing his complaint (the "Complaint"), alleging that his ADA rights had been violated because TA's bus operators do not always comply with ADA bus stop announcement requirements. (See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3, 6). He sought damages and injunctive relief.
The TA moved for summary judgment to dismiss the Complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part in an opinion dated February 6, 2006 (the "February 6 Opinion"). Stewart v. New York City Transit Auth., No. 03 Civ. 10329(RWS), 2006 WL 270100 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2006) (dismissing claim for damages). In accordance with the February 6 Opinion, a further hearing on injunctive relief was held, settlement discussions ensued, and the TA, by letter, renewed its summary judgment motion. The instant motion was marked submitted on November 8, 2006.
The Facts
The facts were found in the February 6 Opinion and have not been altered upon this submission.
The passage of time has resulted in additional findings. The most recently available data from the ADA Announcement Compliance Ride Program (the "Compliance Ride Program") is from August 2006, which indicates Bus Operator compliance remains at or near seventy percent. The Compliance Ride Program, developed by the Department of Buses, monitors announcements on randomly selected rides. It also targets Bus Operators who have been the subject of complaints for failure to make bus stop announcements as well as bus routes in depots where compliance is lagging in comparison to other depots. The TA also continues to conduct compliance monitoring through the Passenger Environment Survey (the "PES"), which is performed by the TA's Operations Planning Division.
According to earlier data from the Compliance Ride Program, the compliance rate for the period from September 1, 2005, through April 30, 2006, was 70.65 percent.
In addition, the TA has undertaken to do the following:
1. Continue the Compliance Ride Program until compliance reaches at least ninety percent. 2. Initiate automated announcements upon successful installation of automated vehicle location ("AVL") technology on all TA buses (Sinclair Aff. ¶¶ 43-45). (Once this system is operational, the Compliance Ride Program would be discontinued, at least in its current form.) 3. Achieve at least ninety percent compliance by considering and initiating any proposals for improving bus stop announcement compliance that it becomes aware of, either through its own research or by outside proposals, and that are legally and operationally feasible and reasonable as to cost. An AVL technology contract has been awarded and implementation of the AVL technology has begun at the 126th Street Bus Depot (191 vehicles and fifteen customer information vehicles). As of October 2006, mini-fleet testing of eight buses and one non-revenue vehicle was nearing completion and installation of the AVL technology at the 126th Street Bus Depot was scheduled to be completed by December 2006. A phased installation of the AVL technology in remaining depots was to begin in 2007. The TA expects that by December 2007, roll-out of the AVL technology will reach an additional three or four depots, each with upwards of 500 buses.Stewart has raised no objection, either in the Complaint or in opposition to the TA's motion, to the adequacy of training.
Conclusions
The summary judgment standard and the applicable law and regulations were set. forth in the February 9 Opinion and remain applicable.
No contested issue of material fact has been presented.
No evidence has been adduced that any specific injunctive relief would have a better probability of improving Bus Operator compliance than the actions the TA currently is taking and will continue to take.
The TA is hereby ordered to adhere to its representations as set forth above, and to continue the monitoring of bus stop announcement compliance through the PES survey.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary judgment is granted, the action is dismissed with prejudice and without costs and disbursements.
Submit judgment on notice.
It is so ordered.