JUDGE BATTS Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1
I 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 24
‘ 6

UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,

: Case no.

Plaintiffs,
-against-

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE : AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JULIE DENT, in her official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York,

Defendants. x

INTRODUCTION 1. This lawsuit challenges pervasive, ongoing, and inexcusable discrimination by Defendants, the Board of Elections in the City of New York against voters with mobility and/or visual disabilities who seek to exercise their right to vote at their assigned polling places. 2. For at least a decade, Defendants have known that many polling places in New York City are inaccessible to disabled voters. Yet, over twenty years after the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act — a law Congress enacted with the express purpose of ensuring that Americans with disabilities are able to participate equally and fully in their communities — disabled residents of New York City still do not have equal access to one of the most fundamental rights in this country: the right to vote.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

1

TO- Disability Rights

P0001/0024

J.

ILI INcVV 1 ULM b GVVO 1/4,1W161611 1.-7.4c 1,LIWII, 1V1 4.A,PALL1vAi..-, tnr.u. 13.1.SJIJA V AN,WINS

oCutaosfe615:1po0l-lcinvg-0p5la6c5e3s -iDnsApBec-tHedB,PtherDe owceurem5e4nlto1catioFnislewdit0h7b/2ar6ri/e1r0s toPaacgceess2iboilfit2y4.

Similarly, of the 51 polling places in New York City inspected during the November 3, 2009

General Election, 43 had accessibility barriers. The barriers were pervasive and significant.

4. At several polling places there were narrow doorways that prevented voters

from entering a polling place. Additionally, steps that led up to main entrances often posed

an impassible barrier due to consistently inadequate and often dangerous entryway ramps.

These exterior ramps were commonly steep, had no edges to prevent voters from slipping off

the sides, lacked band rails which voters need to support themselves, did not have a flat

landing which voters need in order to anchor themselves while pushing a door open, and

ramps were also sometimes dangerously unstable.

5. When voters were not able to enter through the front door of a polling place,

they typically looked for an alternative secondary entrance. Signs directing voters to an

accessible entrance are required. Unfortunately, in New York elections adequate signage is

rare. In fact, poll site inspectors encountered signs which were missing or incorrect more

than they encountered signs which helped voters to get inside.

6. As a result of inadequate signage, voters who used wheelchairs, walkers, and

canes in the past few elections too often found themselves going around buildings, confused

and undirected, searching for a way to get inside their polling place.

7. Inside, signage in the 2008 and 2009 elections was also often non-existent or

insufficient. When voters with disabilities used an alternate accessible entrance, failure to

post interior signage directing them to the voting room left some voters inside a building lost

without guidance.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

2 TO- Disability Rights P0002/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 24
8. Voters who get inside a building but who do not know where to go are left in a predicament. Voting experts report that this situation commonly involves traversing back hallways which are littered with debris and storage items.
9. In the last few elections, even voters who reached the room where ballots were cast all too often found the room inaccessible. Barriers at this point in the journey stemmed from setting up tables, machines, and voting stations close to one another, resulting in a cramped and crowded voting room.
10. Poll workers reported that they received little to no training on accessibility. In the past few elections, this lack of training has been painfully obvious to voters who used mobility aids. These voters repeatedly faced rooms of voting machines which were inaccessibly cramped, and poll workers who were too often insensitive or rude to people requesting an accommodation.
11. Where there is no path of travel in the voting room, a voter using a wheel chair, for example, would be forced into the humiliating choice between turning around and not voting, or asking poll workers to move tables and machines.
12. Every year too many New Yorkers with disabilities are forced to make this choice when they try to be part of their community and vote alongside their neighbors at their polling places.
13. People with vision disabilities also faced serious access bathers in the 2008 and 2009 elections. Poll inspections revealed that poll workers often had no understanding of how to identify barriers for people with vision disabilities, or how to warn people of these bathers. At one polling place, for example, there were window guards that protruded into the path that voters used to get from the sidewalk to the voting room. The window guards

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

3 TO- Disability Rights P0003/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 24
were sharp and metal. There was no marking to direct a person with a vision disability to step aside to avoid these window guards. A simple cone on the ground would have sufficed to keep voters with vision disabilities safe.
14. The vast majority of polling place barriers could be eliminated with little or no cost to the city. Providing resources like cones, signs, and training for poll workers would dramatically increase access for many New York voters.
15. For years, disability advocacy organizations have attempted to work with the City to rectify this problem. Despite these sustained efforts access barriers persist throughout New York City elections.
16. Cumulatively, the pervasive individual barriers at New York City polling places work to silence the political voice of people with disabilities. People with disabilities who know they are likely to face arduous trekking through unfamiliar buildings, indifference from untrained poll workers, or humiliating moments while asking to be accommodated, are either discouraged from going to the polling place or are actively prevented from casting a vote.
17. Voting is a fundamental American ritual which binds our country. By preventing people with disabilities from participating in elections Defendants keep this group of people invisible, and limit their ability to participate in the political life of their communities.
18. On an individual level people who are prevented from voting experience alienation and are treated by their government as if they are not important and not welcome.
19_ For people with disabilities, access barriers perpetuate the isolation which has been a damaging historical reality for this group.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

4 TO- Disability Rights P0004/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 5 of 24
20. The current administration of elections in New York City undercuts the most fundamental goals of the Americans with Disabilities Act — access, independence, and participation in American life. This lawsuit seeks to compel Defendants to take action to give people with disabilities in New York City the voice, and visibility that they deserve.
JURISDICTION 21. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 22. This Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
VENUE 23. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the District in which this Complaint is filed, because Defendants are located within this District, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this District, and a substantial part of the property that is the subject of this action is situated in this District.
PARTIES 24. Plaintiff United Spinal Association ("United Spinal") is a nonprofit disability rights and veterans service organization. The organization has national membership and was founded in 1946. 25. The mission of United Spinal is to provide expertise, create access to resources, and strengthen hope, thereby enabling people with spinal cord injuries and disorders to fulfill their potential as active members of their communities.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

5 TO- Disability Rights P0005/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 6 of 24
26. United Spinal drafted significant portions of the ADA. It continues to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities through state and federal legislation, the courts, grass-roots advocacy, and education.
27. Almost 1,000 members of United Spinal reside in New York City. Many such members are registered voters with disabilities who have encountered obstacles, or are at risk of encountering obstacles, at their polling place in New York City.
28. United Spinal currently expends substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and practices that affect disabled voters in New York City.
29. United Spinal itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' failure to ensure that polling places in New York City are accessible to voters with disabilities. United Spinal's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources advocating for constituents who are harmed by policies and practices resulting in polling place inaccessibility in New York City. This injury would be directly redressed by injunctive and declaratory relief in this case.
30. Plaintiff Disabled in Action ("DIA"), founded in 1970, is a nonprofit civil rights membership organization committed to ending discrimination against people with all disabilities.
31. DIA consists primarily of, and is directed by, people with disabilities. 32. Among the goals of DIA is to work for passage of laws that affirm and defend the rights of people with disabilities, including the State Polling Access Law of 1980 mandating that all polling places in New York State be accessible by 1990.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

6

TO- Disability Rights

P0006/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 7 of 24
33. DIA's members include residents throughout New York City. Many such members are registered voters with disabilities who have encountered obstacles, or are at risk of encountering obstacles, at their polling place in New York City.
34. DIA currently expends substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and practices that affect disabled voters in New York City.
35. DIA itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' failure to ensure that polling places in New York City are accessible to voters with disabilities. DIA's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources advocating for its constituents who are harmed by encountering barriers at polling places. Such injury would be directly redressed by injunctive and declaratory relief in this case.
36. Defendant Board of Elections in the City of New York ("BOE-NYC") is an administrative body of ten Commissioners, two from each borough appointed by the City Council, for a term of four years.
37. BOE-NYC is responsible for, among other things, selecting and operating polling places for each election district in New York City.
38. In addition, BOE-NYC's obligations include voter education, notification, and dissemination of election information.
39. BOE-NYC also recruits, trains, and assigns the various individuals to conduct elections in all the polling places in New York City.
40. Defendant Julie Dent, in her official capacity, is President of BOE-NYC and is thus responsible for, and a participant in, the actions and omissions of BOE-NYC.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

7

TO- Disability Rights

P0007/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 8 of 24
41. Defendants select and operate polling places, and select and train poll workers, in a manner that discriminates against registered voters with disabilities, by denying them the right to vote on election day at their designated polling places, and denying them meaningful access to the entire election program operated by Defendants.
42. For every election, Defendants are responsible for designating a polling place for each district within New York City. NY Elec. § 4-104(a).
43. Under applicable state law, each such polling place "shall have at least one entrance that provides access, by ramp or otherwise, to physically disabled voters," unless BOE-NYC specifies in writing why it has determined that it is unable to comply with this requirement. NY Elec. § 4-104(1-a).
44. In addition, Defendants have known for decades that federal law requires them to ensure that voters with mobility and vision disabilities are able to physically access their designated polling places on Election Day.
45. Despite knowledge of these legal requirements, Defendants continue to choose polling place locations that are inaccessible to voters with mobility and vision disabilities.
46. The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York ("CIDNY") is the downstate contractor for the Protection and Advocacy for Voter Access ("PAVA") program. This program is operated by the New York State Commission on Quality of Care's Advocacy Services Bureau. As a PAVA agency, CIDNY helps voters with disabilities register to vote, access polling places, learn more about their rights as voters, and understand new voting laws. CIDNY' s PAVA program serves people in all five boroughs of New York City.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

8 TO- Disability Rights P0008/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 9 of 24
47. Since 2003, CIDNY has inspected polling places in New York City during primary and general elections to determine whether people with disabilities can access the sites and vote without barriers.
48. CIDNY's inspections show that approximately 70 percent of the polling places in New York City that the BOE-NYC deemed accessible, in fact presented one or more significant access barriers.
49. Most of the New York City polling places CIDNY inspected during the General Elections on November 4, 2008 and November 3, 2009 had accessibility barriers.
50. Such bathers included obstacles at entrances, missing or incorrect exterior signs indicating the location of accessible entrances and of the voting area, missing or incorrect interior signs indicating the location of accessible entrances and of the voting area, missing ramps or ramps that did not comply with applicable standards, and accessibility barriers inside polling places.
51. Barriers at the entrance often include temporary obstructions such as garbage, boxes, tables, or other obstacles that easily could be moved to create a safe path of travel for voters in wheelchairs and voters with visual disabilities. Such voters usually are unable to move these barriers themselves, and typically no poll worker is present to receive a report of the problem so that it can be corrected.
52. At many polling places, the main entrance to the building is not an accessible entrance. In such cases, Defendants are obligated to provide signs directing voters to the location of an accessible entrance. When an entrance is accessible to voters with disabilities, Defendants also have an obligation to provide a sign at that entrance including the universal symbol for accessibility.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

9

TO- Disability Rights

P0009/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 10 of 24
53. Such signs are often missing or inaccurate, however. For instance, when the main entrance to a polling place is not an accessible entrance, Defendants often fail to post any sign near the main entrance indicating where the accessible entrance is located. Disabled voters thus must travel around the building hoping to find some entrance they might use to access their polling place.
54. Even if a sign at the main entrance does indicate the direction of an accessible entrance, that accessible entrance itself may lack any sign that it is accessible. A disabled voter thus may not realize a particular entrance is the accessible entrance, or in the alternative, must attempt to enter other entrances of the building, hoping for an alternate route inside.
55. At some polling places, voters using wheelchairs for mobility must use a ramp to access the entrance. Yet in many cases, applicable standards deem these ramps too steep to be used safely. Many also lack level landings at the top by the door that allow wheelchair users to maneuver safely and open the door without risking rolling back down the ramp_ Some also lack edge protections that prevent people in wheelchairs from falling off the ramps, and many additionally lack guardrails or handrails which are required by law.
56. Obstacles inside polling places also preclude access for some voters with disabilities. Even if a disabled voter manages to enter his or her polling place, items placed in the path of travel to the voting area, overhanging obstructions or protruding objects, and impassibly narrow doorways or hallways all can present barriers and/or dangers to people with disabilities trying to cast a ballot.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

10

TO- Disability Rights

P0010/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 11 of 24
57. Frequently a building in which an accessible polling place ordinarily is located will be under construction or have some other condition that makes it inaccessible on the day of an election.
58. Defendants' efforts to ascertain whether the polling places they designate will be and actually are accessible on Election Day are inadequate. Thus, if construction or a temporary malfunction at a polling place, for example, renders it temporarily inaccessible, voters have no way of knowing in advance that they will be unable to access their polling places on Election Day.
59. Mr. Robert Kraus, for example, is a wheelchair user whose assigned polling place is on the second floor of a building.
60. To get to the second story, where voting takes place, Mr. Kraus uses an elevator. Mr. Kraus has voted for approximately 40 years and voting alongside his neighbors in his community is meaningful for him.
61. On a recent Election Day, the elevator he normally uses was not working. From his regular entrance, there was no way to get upstairs besides the elevator. Mr. Kraus successfully found another entrance to the building. That entrance, however, was not wheelchair accessible because there were multiple steps with no ramp, which blocked his way. That day, Mr. Kraus could not access his polling place and could not vote with his neighbors.
62. Mr. Kraus, like most voters, took time out of his daily life to vote, time which was ultimately wasted when he could not enter the polling site. Mr. Kraus received no advanced warning that his polling place was not accessible and he received no advanced notice directing him to an accessible site.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

11

TO-

Disability Rights

P0011/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 12 of 24
63. Ultimately, Mr. Kraus' only option for casting a vote was to stay on the sidewalk and to fill out a paper ballot outside, in public, with a poll worker and pedestrians watching.
64. Because the ballot receptacle was inside the polling place, Mr. Kraus was unable to independently cast his ballot. Unlike non-disabled voters at this polling place, Mr. Kraus had no way to confirm that his vote was cast at all. The poll worker who watched him vote confirmed that indeed, Mr. Kraus would have no way of knowing whether his ballot was counted.
65. Alternatives to voting in person at Plaintiffs' designated polling places like the sidewalk ballot described above, are not lawful or viable substitutes for casting a ballot at the neighborhood polling place. A disabled voter who arrives at an inaccessible polling place on Election Day may be unable to locate or travel to an accessible voting location before polls close. When voters with disabilities leave home to cast their vote, they are not assured that their location, or alternative locations, will be accessible. Faced with the prospect of finding themselves at an inaccessible polling place, many voters with disabilities are likely dissuaded from attempting to vote at all.
66. Defendants have done no comprehensive analysis of the accessibility of existing polling places. Thus, it is unclear whether there are even sufficient accessible locations to provide plausible alternative options for disabled voters.
67. Absentee ballots are a wholly inadequate substitute for voting in person. For absentee voters to have their votes counted, they may have to vote well in advance of Election Day, which deprives these voters of time to consider their choice which would otherwise be available.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

12 TO- Disability Rights P0012/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 13 of 24

68. Even if absentee were an acceptable substitute, NY Elec. § 8-400(3)(c)(iii)

requires that voters intending to vote by absentee ballot obtain a statement from their doctor

certifying that voting by absentee ballot is medically necessary. Requiring statements to this

effect is arduous and impractical, and as such, it is not likely that many voters with

disabilities would avail themselves of this already inadequate substitute for an in person

ballot.

69. Defendants also fail to adequately train poll workers to recognize situations in

trameu u.) natiuiG zweebbiunity

LtiaL

LA4.00.,

so MA. s•• •

"rs.

equipped to deal with the ramifications of a malfunctioning elevator and are unprepared for

how to accommodate a voter in wheelchair who faces an entrance with stairs and no ramp.

70. Jack Bogart's experience illustrates the gravity of this problem. Mr. Bogart is

a New York City resident who has a disability affecting his mobility. Mr. Bogart confronted

a similar problem in a recent election.

71. Mr. Bogart uses a scooter to travel around his neighborhood and to his polling

place to vote.

72. Defendant BOE-NYC designated a centrally located neighborhood church as

Mr. Bogart's polling place. The entrance to the church has several steps in front of it. There

is no permanent ramp to allow access to this site.

73. When Mr. Bogart arrived to vote in a recent election, he discovered that

Defendants failed to deliver a temporary ramp to the site. Such a ramp was absolutely

necessary for voters with mobility disabilities to safely enter this polling place.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

13 TO- Disability Rights P0013/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 14 of 24
74. Mr. Bogart sought help from the poll workers that Defendants assigned to this site. He found that they were indifferent to his plight and failed to offer him any help whatsoever. Members of the church stepped in and attempted to improvise a ramp for Mr. Bogart in order to enable him to enter the polling site and vote.
75. The church members found a piece of wood, which they placed over the stairs as a make-shift ramp. The wood was thin and fragile. It could not support Mr. Bogart in his scooter and it crumbled under the weight.
76. As a last resort, the church members physically pushed Mr. Bogart and his scooter up the stairs and through the entrance.
77. After Mr. Bogart voted, he faced the daunting task of exiting the inaccessible polling place. Members of the church again stepped in to help. This time, they placed the top of a dining table over the stairs. The table-top ramp was steep and not safe to use. However, Mr. Bogart felt he had no other option but to try the improvised table-top ramp with volunteers helping him on the way down.
78. During this scene, poll workers called the BOE-NYC to request a safe and usable temporary ramp. Around 9:00 PM Mr. Bogart checked back at the polling place to see if any action had been taken. At that time, when polls were about to close, the location was still inaccessible.
79. Even when temporary ramps are delivered, Defendants do not monitor or spot check polling places to ensure that they are in fact accessible on Election Day. In the absence of such monitoring, Defendants are entirely unaware that polling places are inaccessible unless someone, such as a community organization or an individual voter, alerts them of a problem.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

14 TO- Disability Rights P0014/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 15 of 24
80. Indeed, for many years, CIDNY and individual voters have provided Defendants with abundant information about the prevalence and variety of accessibility barriers in the polling places Defendants choose.
81. Year after year, Defendants consistently received reports, information, and survey results that demonstrate polling places that are inaccessible. Defendants are also aware of public testimony and advocacy efforts which asked Defendants to take steps to eliminate access barriers. In the face of this evidence Defendants continue to erroneously claim that virtually all of their polling places are completely accessible to all voters with disabilities. Accordingly, they have taken no action to adequately address and eliminate these barriers.
82. Defendants' selection and operation of polling places in New York City discriminates against registered voters with disabilities. Although in some cases Defendants have made modifications, they have failed to adopt systemic policies and procedures sufficient to ensure that all polling places are accessible on Election Day to voters with mobility and/or visual disabilities.
83. Plaintiffs are without a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law, thereby rendering injunctive relief appropriate in that:
a. Damages cannot adequately compensate Plaintiffs and their class for the injuries suffered;
b. If the conduct complained of is not enjoined, a multiplicity of suits will result because Defendants' conduct is continuous and ongoing; and
c. Damages for the harm inflicted upon Plaintiffs and their class are difficult to ascertain.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

15 TO- Disability Rights P0015/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 16 of 24
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 84. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the named Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief on their own behalf, on behalf of their members, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The class the named Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all residents of New York City who are registered to vote, have one or more disabilities affecting their mobility and/or vision, and are being denied access to polling places during General Elections and Primary Elections (and any Special Elections) because of Defendants' failure to ensure that all polling places are accessible to voters with disabilities on the day of the election. The class claims asserted herein are solely for injunctive and declaratory relief for the class. 85. The persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of such persons is impractical and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to the Court. 86. Data from the United States Census conducted in 2000 indicate that more than 1.6 million residents over the age of 21 in New York City self-identify as having a disability. Such data further show that more than 220,000 non-institutionalized New York City residents over the age of 16 have a sensory disability, which includes visual disabilities, and more than 588,000 non-institutionalized New York City residents over the age of 16 have a physical disability, which includes mobility disabilities. In light of such data, a conservative estimate of the number of registered voters residing in New York City who have a mobility and/or visual disability is well over 100,000. 87. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented, in that Plaintiffs' members have been and

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

16

TO- Disability Rights

P0016/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 17 of 24
continue to be denied their right to vote at their designated polling places on Election Day, due to Defendants' discriminatory selection of and operation of polling places in New York City and failure to provide Plaintiffs' members with meaningful access to the voting program in that City.
88. Common questions of law and fact predominate, including questions raised by Plaintiffs' allegations that Defendants have failed to provide accessible polling places on Election Day for voters with disabilities and have failed to provide program access to New York City's voting program, services, and facilities, and that Defendants' approach to physical accessibility of polling places on Election Day excludes and discriminates against voters with disabilities.
89. The claims of the named Plaintiffs, or their members, are typical of the claims of the class as a whole, because the named Plaintiffs, or their members, are similarly affected by Defendants' failure to provide access to polling places. For instance, Plaintiffs' members find it difficult or impossible to enter their polling places and cast ballots there, and the failure to adequately train poll workers and monitor accessibility of polling places increases the likelihood that Plaintiffs' members will encounter barriers at their polling places that will preclude their ability to vote there.
90. The named Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they, and/or their members, are directly affected by Defendants' discriminatory selection and operation of polling places, failure to adequately train poll workers, and failure to monitor polling places, which denies class members meaningful access to polling places in order to exercise their fundamental right to vote. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

17

TO- Disability Rights

P0017/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 18 of 24
experienced in disability law and in class action institutional reform litigation. Plaintiffs' counsel are qualified to fully prosecute this litigation and possess adequate resources to see this matter through to resolution.
91. Defendants have acted and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
92. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all previously alleged paragraphs of the Complaint.
93. Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."
94, The term "disability" includes persons with physical and mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Plaintiffs' members are, or Plaintiffs represent, qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Thus, Plaintiffs' members and the putative class have mobility and/or visual disabilities that substantially limit the major life activities of walking, seeing, and/or moving about in their communities without aids such as wheelchairs, canes, service dogs, and/or similar assistance.
95. A "public entity" includes state and local governments, their agencies, and their instrumentalities. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). Defendants qualify as public entities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12132 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

18 TO- Disability Rights P0018/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 19 of 24
96. Title II of the ADA generally requires that public entities operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150.
97. Because of Defendants' failure to ensure, in advance of elections, that the polling places they designate are free from accessibility barriers; failure to train poll workers to recognize and eliminate such barriers; failure to train poll workers to recognize and meet the needs of voters with disabilities; and failure to monitor polling places on Election Day to ensure they are free from accessibility barriers, Defendants do not operate their services, programs, or activities of elections and voting so that they are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, such as Plaintiffs' members.
98. Defendants, "in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of handicap — [11] Deny a qualified handicapped person the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service; [11] Afford a qualified handicapped person an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others; [11] Provide a qualified handicapped person with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others; CT Provide different or separate aid, benefits, or services to handicapped persons or to any class of handicapped persons than is provided to others unless such action is necessary to provide qualified handicapped persons with aid, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others; [ig . . . or [11] Otherwise limit a qualified handicapped person in the enjoyment of any right, privilege,

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

19 TO- Disability Rights P0019/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 20 of 24
advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid, benefit, or service." 28 C.F.R. § 39.110(b)(1).
99. Defendants' actions and inactions deny Plaintiffs' members, by reason of their disability, their right to meaningful access to the programs, services, or activities offered by Defendants; deny Plaintiffs' members the opportunity to participate in or benefit from such benefits or services; provide Plaintiffs' members with benefits or services that are not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others; provide different or separate aid, benefits, or services to Plaintiffs' members than is provided to others; otherwise limit Plaintiffs' members in the enjoyment of rights, privileges, advantages, or opportunities enjoyed by others receiving the benefits or services.
100. The ADA regulations also provide that Defendants "may not, in determining the site or location of a facility, make selections the purpose or effect of which would (i) Exclude handicapped persons from, deny them the benefits of, or otherwise subject them to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency; or (ii) Defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the objectives of a program or activity with respect to handicapped persons." 28 C.F.R. § 39.110(b)(4).
101. Defendants determine the site or location of polling places and make selections regarding polling places, the purpose or effect of which excludes Plaintiffs' members from, denies them the benefits of, or otherwise subjects them to discrimination under the election and voting programs or activities conducted by Defendants, and defeats or substantially impairs the accomplishment of the objectives of such programs or activities with respect to Plaintiffs' members.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

20 TO- Disability Rights P0020/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 21 of 24
102. Furthermore, Defendants must "provide signage at all inaccessible entrances to each of its facilities, directing users to an accessible entrance or to a location at which they can obtain information about accessible facilities. The international symbol for accessibility shall be used at each accessible entrance of a facility!' 28 C.F.R. § 35.163(b).
103. Defendants fail to provide signage at all of the inaccessible and accessible entrances to the polling places they select that either directs Plaintiffs' members to accessible entrances or includes the international symbol for accessibility at accessible entrances.
104. Title II of the ADA requires Defendants to make reasonable modifications in the election and voting program to avoid discrimination against Plaintiffs' members on the basis of disability. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7). Defendants' failure to make reasonable modifications in their selection and operation of polling places during elections discriminates against Plaintiffs' members on the basis of disability by making it impossible or more difficult for them to enter such polling places to vote.
105. Defendants' design and administration of their election and voting program, and in particular their selection and operation of polling places, also tend to exclude individuals with disabilities from that program in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8).
106. By selecting and operating polling places for use during elections in a manner that fails to ensure that they are accessible to voters with disabilities, Defendants use criteria or methods of administration that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the objectives of the election and voting program in New York City with respect to persons with disabilities, and discriminating against such persons in violation of Title II of the ADA.

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

21

TO- Disability Rights

P0021/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 22 of 24
107. Defendants' conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of Title 11 of the ADA, persisting for each election conducted in New York City. Unless restrained from doing so, Defendants will continue to violate the ADA. Unless enjoined, said conduct will continue to inflict injuries for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973
108. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all previously alleged paragraphs of the Complaint.
109. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that "no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
110. An "individual with a disability" is defined under the statute, in pertinent part, as "an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual." 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B) (referencing 42 U.S.C. § 12102). Plaintiffs' members include, or Plaintiffs represent, qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the applicable statutes.
111. Defendants' program or activity of conducting elections and voting, including selecting and operating polling places, and selecting and training poll workers, has received substantial federal financial assistance at all relevant times.
112. The actions and/or inactions of Defendants as alleged herein discriminate against Plaintiffs' members because of their disabilities by excluding them from voting at their designated polling places, causing them to face and overcome physical obstacles not

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

22

TO- Disability Rights

P0022/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 23 of 24
faced by voters without disabilities in order to vote at their polling places, and defeating or substantially impairing the accomplishment of the program and activity of enabling all eligible voters to cast their ballots in elections at the polling places designated by Defendants.
113. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and unless the relief requested herein is granted, Plaintiffs and their members will suffer irreparable harm in that they will continue to be discriminated against and denied access to the programs, services, and activities operated and overseen by Defendants.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION DECLARATORY RELIEF 114. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all previously alleged paragraphs of the Complaint. 115. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' selection and operation of polling places for elections in New York City fail to comply with applicable laws including the ADA and Section 504, which require public entities to provide meaningful access to programs, activities, and facilities for persons with disabilities. Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs' contention. 116. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties, and act accordingly. 117. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as set forth below.
RELIEF REQUESTED Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
1. A declaration that Defendants' selection and operation of polling places for elections in New York City discriminates against persons with disabilities and fails to provide meaningful access for persons with disabilities as required by law;

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

23 TO- Disability Rights P0023/0024

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 1 Filed 07/26/10 Page 24 of 24
2. An order enjoining Defendant from violating federal discrimination laws in their selection and operation of polling places for elections in New York City;
3. An award of Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and 4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, NY July 26, 2010

By: JiLIA Pt OVER (JMP333)

r) isabili Rights Advocates /745 Fi Avenue, Suite 1515

New York, NY 10151

Telephone: (212) 644-8644

Facsimile: (212) 644-8636

Email:

general@dralelgal.org

SID WOLINSKY (CA Bar No. 33716)*

RONALD ELSBERRY (CA Bar No. 130880)*

Disability Rights Advocates

2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

Berkeley, CA 94704

Telephone: (510) 665-8644

Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

TTY:

(510) 665-8716

Email:

general@dralegal.org

*Motions for admission pro hac vice pending

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

RECEIVED 07-27-'10 10:31 FROM-

24 TO- Disability eights P0024/0024

 
 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------X
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,

=====, Filed 10/28/10 Page 1 of 13 USDC SDl\'Y

I IDELOECC~U'IY1iffOiNNITCi\LLY FH -ED "

-!Pi?!!:/I DJI DOC #:

I,

~'~L~D: /_?ArE
---......-~----

,

Plaintiffs,

-against-

10 Civ. 5653 (DAB) ORDER

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JULIE DENT, in her official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------x
DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action

move this Court for a Preliminary Injunction requiring the Board

of Elections in the City of New York (the UBOE") to designate a

single poll worker responsible for coordinating issues relating

to accessibility at each poll site. The Plaintiffs propose that

the designated poll worker inspect the poll site three times on

Election Day with the help of a four page uaccessibi1ity

checklist" the Plaintiffs prepared based on the Department of

Justice (UDOJ") poll site guidelines. The Court has considered

the submissions of the parties and the evidence and legal

arguments presented at the hearing held on October 20 and 27,

2010. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs' Motion for a

Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

I II

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 2 of 13
I. BACKGROUND 
 On July 26, 2010, Plaintiffs filed suit against the BOE and Julie Dent, in her official capacity as President of the BOE, alleging that Defendants engaged in "pervasive, ongoing, and inexcusable discrimination" against voters with disabilities (Compl. ~ 1) in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Through an Order to Show Cause, Plaintiffs moved for a Preliminary Injunction on September 28, 2010. Plaintiffs claim that access barriers affecting voters with disabilities have been prevalent in New York City for years, and support their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction with data collected during the General Elections of November 2008 and 2009, as well as the Primary Election held on September 14, 2010. Plaintiffs elicited the help of an expert statistician, Andrew Schwarz, to generate a random sample of polling places in Manhattan and Queens. (PIs.' Mem., p. 2.) Mr. Schwarz selected 53 polling places for inspection, and therefore "could conclude, with at least 95 percent (95%) confidence, that the percentage of barrier-free polling places in all of Manhattan and Queens would not exceed 12 percentage points of the percentage of barrier-free polling places measured in the sample." (P1 s .' Mem., p . 3 )
2
I I

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 3 of 13
(emphasis in original). Advocacy group The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York ("CIDNY") inspected the 53 poll sites , finding some accessibility barriers at 43 of them.
According to Plaintiffs , the barriers CIDNY identified were "overwhelmingly obstacles that can be easilYI quicklYI and cheaply corrected, " such as "failure to post signs indicating an accessible entrance I posted signs that fall downI signs posted incorrectly, objects left on ramps or in doorways, locked doors to accessible entrances, [andJ failure to put a temporary ramp in place ." (Pls. ' Mem. , p. 4.) These "transient" barriers to accessibility are the focus of Plaintiffs ' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. Designating one existing worker at each polling place to check for transient accessibility barriers, Plaintiffs posit,l will allow for the completion of an accessibility checklist three times per site on Election Day, and will "facilitate pre-emptive access barrier removal." (Pls. ' Oct. 26 Ltr., p. 4.) Plaintiffs argue that self-reporting by disabled voters or removal of transient barriers when identified by the voters or other individuals is not sufficient. They argue
Apparently there are no statistical studies or analyses attempting to prove this hypothesis.
3
I I

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 4 of 13
that the BOE must be pro-active and eliminate transient barriers so that disabled voters do not even encounter them. 2
Defendants counter that for the 27 poll sites where the CIDNY surveyors identified "transient" barriers, poll workers corrected the accessibility problems when they were notified of them. (See generally, Defs.' Oct. 26 Ltr.) They argue further that the CIDNY surveys do not indicate how long a transient barrier had been present or how long it took to correct after a poll worker was notified of the problem. They also argue that the surveys frequently are not completed fully or contain evident internal inconsistencies, that the surveys are unclear, and that they reflect the opinion of the writer rather than an objective standard. (Defs.' Oct. 26 Ltr., p. 6.)
2 Pl aintiffs write: Relying on self reporting as a solution to barrier removal is also outside the scope of Plaintiffs claims at this point: Plaintiffs' claims of discrimination are not based on Defendants' failure to rectify barriers after they have been encountered by disabled voters but rather the failure to ensure that such barriers are remedied so that disabled voters may access their polling places just as other voters do. Plaintiffs do not seek post hoc solutions to accessibility barriers. They seek to ensure that Defendants consider, identify, and eliminate such barriers in advance, to the extent possible . . . • Defendants have a duty to ensure that voters with disabilities do not encounter polling place barriers in the first place.
(PIs. Oct. 26 Ltr., p. 5-6.)
4
I I

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 5 of 13
II. DISCUSSION 
 A. Preliminary Injunction Standard
"A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief must establish (1) either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits of his case or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor, and (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm if the requested relief is denied. H Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DIRECTV, Inc., 497 F.3d 144, 153 (2d Cir. 2007). Where the injunction would alter, rather than maintain, the status quo, an injunction should issue only upon a "clear or substantial showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. H D.D. ex reI. V.D. v. New York City Bd. Of Educ., 465 F.3d 503, 510 (2d Cir. 2006).
Here, the injunction Plaintiffs seek would affirmatively require the BOE to designate a poll worker for accessibility issues, and would not simply maintain the status quo. A preliminary injunction, therefore, may only issue upon a "clear or substantial showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. H
5
I I

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 6 of 13
B. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Title II of the ADA provides that "no qualified individual
with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that "no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 705(20) (B). The standards for determining liability are the same under both laws. Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 272 (2d Cir. 2003). To prove discrimination and prevail on their Complaint, therefore, Plaintiffs must establish three things: (1) that they are qualified individuals with a disability, (2) that, by reason of their disability, they are excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of (3) a service, program or activity of a public entity. Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, 118 F.3d 421, 428 (5th Cir. 1997); Spitzer v. County of Delaware, 82 F. Supp. 2d 12, 17 (N.D.N.Y. 2000). For purposes of this Motion, neither
6 

I I

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 7 of 13

party disputes that the Plaintiffs are qualified individuals or

that the Defendants are a public entity. To succeed on the

merits, therefore, Plaintiffs must show that they were excluded

from participation in or denied the benefits of the BOE's voting

program on the basis of disability.

An election entity such as the BOE unquestionably violates

the ADA when it chooses structurally inaccessible poll sites,

forcing disabled voters to use absentee ballots or vote in

alternative locations. See westchester Disabled on the Move,

Inc. v. County of Westchester, 346 F. Supp. 2d 473, 478 (S.D.N.Y.

2004) ("Failing to ensure that disabled individuals are able to

vote in person and at their assigned polling places

. could

not reasonably be construed as consistent with providing

'meaningful access' to the voting process. H ); Kerrigan v.

Philadelphia Bd. Of Election, No. 07-687, 2008 WL 3562521, at *18

(E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2008) (" [F] ailing to ensure that mobility

disabled voters are able to vote in their neighborhood polling

places, to the extent Defendants can do so, is a failure to

provide mobility disabled voters with an equal opportunity to

access the program of voting and violates the program access

mandate. ")

7 


I I

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 8 of 13
For purposes of this Preliminary Injunction, however, Plaintiffs do not complain about the structural barriers the BOE must consider when making its poll site selections. Rather, Plaintiffs focus on the transient barriers to accessibility that naturally arise throughout the day during an election, whether by virtue of improper placement or assembly of voting equipment by poll workers, the dual-use nature of many poll sites (e.g., building management props open a door or places trash in a place that blocks an accessible entrance, or students leave backpacks in a place where wheelchair access may be impeded), or other contingencies (e.g, a voter or member of the public at large locks a bicycle to a wheelchair ramp, blocking access).
Plaintiffs claim that the BOE's inattention to transient barriers denies people with disabilities "meaningful access" to the BOE's voting program. (Compl. ~ 99.) One voter using a wheelchair reported that at her polling place, tables were set up in such a way that they blocked the accessible pathway. (Prentiss Aff. ~ 7.) The voter called her district leader, who remedied the situation. (Id. ~ 9.) In another incident, a voter using a wheelchair arrived at her poll site to find that the wheelchair ramp was blocked by garbage bags uplaced every few
8 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 9 of 13
feet perpendicular to the side of the ramp.1I (Halbert Aff. , 6.) The voter's husband moved the bags. (rd., 7.)
While not claiming that they achieve perfection in ensuring accessibility on election day, the BOE points out that they provide manuals for each poll worker that instruct the workers to check accessibility signs and monitor that the route to the polling place is kept clear. (Board of Elections in the City of New York "2010 Poll Worker's Manual," p. 145-147.) They state that according to the CrDNY surveys, transient barriers were remedied whenever they were brought to the attention of BOE officials or poll workers. At P.S. 129, for example, a CrDNY surveyor advised a poll worker that a ballot marking device ("BMD") had been placed improperly against a wall, and the poll worker resolved the problem. (Defs.' Oct. 26 Ltr., p. 2.) At VFW Post 885, poll workers propped open a door that had an inaccessible doorknob and repositioned a BMD after being notified by a CrDNY surveyor. (Defs.' Oct. 26 Ltr., p. 4.) Furthermore, Assembly District Monitoring Teams visit each poll site during the course of an election day to survey the operation of the site, checking for problems with signage, wheelchair ramps, and improper setup of election equipment that may impede access. (See generally Assembly District Monitoring Surveys.)
9
I I

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 10 of 13
The cases Plaintiffs cite speak only to the BOE's obligation to select accessible poll sites free of structural barriers. See Kerrigan, 2008 WL 3562521, at *18; Westchester County Disabled on the Move, 346 F. Supp. 2d at 478; Spitzer, 82 F. Supp. 2d at 17. Plaintiffs do not cite any cases addressing the BOE's obligations concerning transient barriers only on election day. Similarly, the DOJ checklist for polling places,3 which is meant to ensure that poll sites are ADA compliant, instructs election officials to check sidewalks and walkways for removable barriers when evaluating a potential poll site or an existing poll site in advance of an election, but provides no guidance as to any obligation to repeat such a check over the course of an Election Day. ("ADA Checklist for Polling Places" p. 1, 12-15.)
Plaintiffs' evidence clearly demonstrates that disabled voters may face transient barriers at poll sites that pose a danger or impede access unless remedied. Nevertheless, given the lack of guidance as to the BOE's obligations with respect to transient barriers, Plaintiffs have not shown a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claim that the BOE must implement additional procedures to monitor poll sites for transient accessability barriers. Although, as
3Available at http://www.ada.gov/votingck.htm (last visited Oct. 27, 2010).
10
I II

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 11 of 13
Plaintiffs argue, having to report an accessibility barrier to a poll worker is discouraging and inconvenient, (PIs.' Oct. 26 Ltr., p. 5), the burden of having to complain to a poll worker or a helpful voter about a transient barrier is hardly comparable to the burdens on disabled voters contemplated in Spitzer and westchester county Disabled on the Move, where pervassive structural barriers meant that disabled voters had to cast absentee ballots rather than vote in person. The burden is more like those placed on employees complaining of ADA violations by employers, where an employee must notify his or her employer and request reasonable accommodation before a discrimination claim can be sustained. See Canales-Jacobs v. New York State Office of Court Admin., 640 F. Supp. 2d 482, 500 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not shown that the remedy they request will reduce barriers to accessibility in any substantial way. Unlike structural barriers, which can be evaluated in the months and even years leading up to an election, transient barriers must be recognized and corrected as they arise on election day. The BOE can train and remind poll workers to monitor the poll site for transient barriers, check for transient barriers during site visits, and correct transient barriers when notified of them by a voter or advocacy group. Given that many
11

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 12 of 13
poll sites operate as schools, residences, and places of worship during an Election Day, and are not under the complete control of the BOE, perfection is unlikely.
Plaintiffs rightly point out that checklists, such as the one the DOJ created for evaluating poll sites, can be effective at eliminating access barriers. (Pls.' Oct. 26 Ltr., p. 4.) Nevertheless, when dealing with transient barriers like the ones at issue here, such checklists are only effective as to the barriers in place at the time the poll worker completes the survey. If a voter or other member of the public secures a bike to the handrail of a wheelchair ramp two minutes after the survey was completed, that access barrier will impede disabled voters arriving at that time. Those voters would then still face the inconvenience and discouragement of having to locate and notify a poll worker about the barrier. (Pls.' Oct. 26 Ltr., p. 5.) The BOE faces the same dilemma in its current approach to addressing transient barriers. The Assembly District Monitoring Teams complete checklists addressing accessibility issues when they visit each poll site at least once during Election Day, and the Poll Worker's Manual includes checklists addressing accessibility issues. (See, e.g., Board of Elections in the City of New York U2010 Poll Worker's Manual," p. 145-147.) The Assembly District
12

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 50 Filed 10/28/10 Page 13 of 13
Monitoring Reports and the CIDNY surveys indicate that the BOE and poll workers remove transient barriers when made aware of them, whether they were identified using the Assembly District Monitoring Team Checklist, or through being alerted by a voter or advocate. (See, Defs.' Oct. 26 Ltr., p. 2, 6.) Nevertheless, transient barriers continue to arise and voters or members of advocacy groups must occasionally call them to the attention of a poll worker.
III. CONCLUSION At this stage of the proceeding, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a substantial or clear likelihood of success on the merits. The Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction must therefore be DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

New York, New York
October~, 2010

&1mb.a..&A Deborah A. Batts united States District Judge

13 


 
 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 57 Filed 01/28/11 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------- --------------------------X 

UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit
organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,

USDCSD!'li'

DOC\J1o,ffil\~

ELECfRONlCALLY 'F'll.ED II

-_JJ DOC #:

I!

DA~~~=- I. B

Plaintiffs,

-against-

10 Civ. 5653 (DAB) 
 ORDER 


BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JULIE DENT, in her official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------X 

DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is DENIED.

Defendants are Ordered to Answer the Complaint within 20 days of

the date of this Order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

New York, New York January 28, 2011

Deborah A. Batts United States District Judge

 
 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------X
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a
nonprofit organization,

Plaintiffs,

-v. -

10 Civ. 5653 (DAB) MEMORANDUM & ORDER

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JULIE DENT, in her official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------x
DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action

bring this action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant

to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42

U.S.C. § 12131, et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., to remedy what

they allege are pervasive and persistent access barriers at poll

sites operated by the Board of Elections in the City of New York

(the "BOE"). On October 28, 2010, after finding that Plaintiffs

could not meet the stringent standard of showing a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits required for a mandatory

injunction, this Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for a

Preliminary Injunction.

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 2 of 31
Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment on the issue of Defendants' liability for violations of Title II of the ADA and Section 504. Defendants cross-move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
I. BACKGROUND Unless otherwise noted, the following facts are undisputed. The united States Census Bureau's 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year estimates that, among the non-institutionalized people in New York City ages 18-64, 67,000 persons have vision difficulties and 222,469 persons have ambulatory difficulties. (PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 132.) Among the non-institutionalized population in New York City ages 65 and over, 78,502 persons have a vision difficulty and 267,563 persons have an ambulatory difficulty. (Id., ~ 133.)
A. The Parties Organizational Plaintiffs United Spinal Association ("United
Spinal") and Disabled In Action ("DIA") are membership organizations that consist of people with mobility and/or vision disabilities who reside in New York City and are registered to
2

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 3 of 31
vote. (PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 134.) United Spinal is a nonprofit disability rights and veterans service organization whose mission is to provide expertise, create access to resources, and strengthen hope, thereby enabling people with spinal cord injuries and disorders to fulfill their potential as active members of their communities. (Id., ~ 135.) United Spinal engages in voting advocacy on behalf of its members, including advocacy campaigns for accessible polling places, participating in legislative processes regarding voting issues, and educating its members on their voting rights. (Id., ~ 136.) Almost 1,000 members of United Spinal reside in New York City. Many members are registered voters with disabilities who have encountered obstacles, or are at risk of encountering obstacles, at their polling places in New York City. (Id., ~ 137.)
DIA is a nonprofit civil rights organization committed to ending discrimination against people with disabilities, which consists primarily of, and is directed by, people with disabilities. (Id., ~ 140.) The majority of DIA members are wheelchair users or those who have mobility disabilities. DIA has approximately 200 members in the metropolitan New York region, many of whom are registered voters with disabilities who have encountered obstacles, or are at risk of encountering
3

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 4 of 31
obstacles, at their polling places in New York City.
141. )
The BOE is responsible for identifying and designating poll sites that are accessible to voters with disabilities throughout New York City. (PIs .' 5 6 • 1 Stmt ., ~ 2.) Pursuant to the Help America Vote Act ("HAVA"), the BOE received federal funds from which it was authorized to make, and did make, expenditures. The federal grant was approximately $1.6 million. (Id., ~ 3.)
B. CIDNY and Poll-Site Accessibility Surveys Under HAVA, the Protection and Advocacy for Voter Access
("PAVA") program was established by the New York State Commission on Quality of Care and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities to ensure the full participation of individuals with disabilities in the electoral process. The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York ("CIDNY") is the downstate regional PAVA office. (Id., ~ 5.) Rima McCoy, who served as Voting Rights Coordinator for CIDNY from July 2008 until December 16, 2011, states that
[w]hat appears to be a small barrier to the untrained eye, may actually be prohibitively embarrassing, uncomfortable, or arduous for a person with a disability to overcome. For example, where there is no signage to an accessible entrance, a person in a wheelchair may find themselves stranded and wandering
4 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 5 of 31

down back alleys, searching for an accessible way inside. If there is rain, this situation is uncomfortable. If it is night time, this may not be safe. If the person's disability causes them to be fatigued quickly, this may be arduous at best. When a person is forced to cast a ballot on the sidewalk, it is humiliating and deeply alienating. These barriers not only impede access in the moment someone is voting, but also cast a chill on people with disabilities' willingness to participate in future elections and confront the same kind of discriminatory and humiliating treatment.

(McCoy Decl., ~ 19.)

The Department of Justice ("DOJ") has created an ADA

Checklist for Polling Places for poll-site accessibility. (PIs.'

56.1 Stmt., ~ 11.) CIDNY has been inspecting poll sites for

accessibility since at least 2008. Inspections have been

conducted by CIDNY staff and volunteers using a form checklist

based on the DOJ ADA Checklist for Polling Places.

, ~ 12;

Defs.' Resp. PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 12.) The DOJ Checklist "is

designed to help voting officials determine whether a polling

place has basic accessible features needed by most voters with

disabilities." (McCoy Decl. Ex. A, p. 4.) The Checklist states

that "[i]ndividuals completing the checklist do not necessarily

need to be experienced in evaluating buildings and facilities for

accessibility." (Id.) In fact, the only special equipment

necessary for completion of the checklist is a metal tape measure

at least IS-feet long and a level with a bubble measure or

5

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 6 of 31
digital measure at least twenty-four inches long. (Id., p. 5.) The DOJ Checklist prompts the user to check that sidewalks and walkways are free from objects that could impede blind or mobility-impaired voters, that ramps are wide-enough and do not have excessive slope, that accessible entrances are marked with appropriate signage when the main entrance to the poll site is not accessible, that doors at the accessible entrance provide sufficient clearance and are propped open if they cannot be opened easily, and that the route through the voting area is sufficiently wide.
crDNY inspectors were trained on how to use levels and measuring tapes to identify the existence and severity of barriers at polling sites. Trainees practiced using a level to take slope measurements and viewed illustrations, photos, and props to simulate barriers. (McCoy Decl., ~ 23.) CrDNY generally selects poll sites to inspect based on complaints from consumers or availability of inspectors. For the September 2010 and November 2011 elections, CrDNY surveyed a random sample of poll sites identified by an expert statistician for Disability Rights Advocates. (rd., ~ 25.)
CrDNY has summarized the data from poll-site accessibility checklists and created summary spreadsheets for at least the 2008
6 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 7 of 31

through 2011 elections. (PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 25.) CrDNY submits

these summary spreadsheets to the BOE every year. (rd.) rn its

2011 Poll Worker's Manual on Disability Awareness, the BOE stated

that "Each year, CrDNY

. finds large objects obstructing

pathways at Poll Sites." (Seaborn Decl. Ex. E, p. 33.)

C. November 2011 Surveys CrDNY surveyed poll sites during the General Election held
on November 8, 2011. (P1s.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 33.) At P.S. 51, located at 87-45 117th Street in Queens, the ramp was only 33 inches wide and did not comply with DOJ Guidelines. (rd., ~ 36.> Defendants admit that the ramp is less than 36 inches wide, but state that the ramp is a permanent ramp and that Plaintiffs have not provided evidence that there is an alternative accessible site. (Defs.' Resp. P1s.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 36.) Plaintiffs also state that there was no sign at the inaccessible main entrance to P.S. 51 indicating the location of the accessible entrance. (P1s.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 37.) Defendants state that they have a policy of placing appropriate signage, and if there was a problem with the signage at P.S. 51, Defendants were not notified of it. (Defs.' Resp. PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 37.) Plaintiffs also state that the Ballot Marking Device ("BMD") was positioned too close

7 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 8 of 31
to the wall so that there was not enough space for a wheelchair user to access it. (Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 38.) Defendants state that they have a policy of placing voting equipment so that it is accessible, and if the equipment was improperly placed, Defendants were never notified of it. (Defs.' Resp. Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 38.)
At P.S. 175, located at 64-35 102nd Street in Queens, the BMD was placed facing towards the interior of the room, which meant that users would not have privacy. (Pls.' 56.1. Stmt., ~ 39.) Defendants state that they have a policy of placing BMDs to allow for privacy, and if the machine was placed improperly, they were not made aware of it. (Defs.' Resp. Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., , 39.)
At P.S. 99, located at 82-37 Kew Gardens Road in Queens, CIDNY surveyors found that the voting area did not have the 36 inch pathway needed for wheelchair users in many places and that the ADA privacy booth was improperly placed. (P1 s .' 5 6 • 1 Stmt . , ,40.) Defendants state that the BOE has a policy of placing voting equipment in an accessible manner, and if the equipment was improperly placed, they were not notified of it. (Defs. ' Resp. Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 40.)
8 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 9 of 31

At P.S. 190, located at 68-17 Austin Street in Queens, CIDNY

surveyors noted a door that was "very heavy" and an automatic

door opener that did not work, along with an improperly placed BMD. (PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~~ 41-42.) Defendants state that they

were not made aware that the automatic door opener did not work

and that the BMD was repositioned once a poll worker was made

aware of the inaccessible placement. Stmt., ~, 41-42.)

(Defs.' Resp. PIs.' 56.1

CrDNY surveyors recorded similar problems at several other

poll sites during the November 2011 General Election, including

at Los Tres Unidos HUD residence, located at 22 East 112th Street

in Manhattan (inadequate signage, door saddle/lip higher than 1

inch, objects obstructing pathways in the voting area), 1199 HUD

residence located at 420 East 111th Street in Manhattan (doorway

too small, inaccessible buzzer at entrance), P.S. 19, located at

40-32 99th Street in Queens (no sign and locked door at

accessible entrance, furniture blocking interior pathway), P.S.

127, located at 98-01 25th Avenue in Queens (furniture blocking

access at top of ramp), Taiwan Center, located at 137-44 Northern

Boulevard in Queens (steep ramp without landing or handrails, BMD

improperly placed), and Flushing House, located at 3820 Bowne Street in Queens (BMD and ADA privacy booth improperly placed) .

9 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 10 of 31
(PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~~ 45-56.) Defendants contend that with these
sites, as with the others , that Plaintiffs have failed to suggest
alternative sites and that Defendants were not told about problems that could have been corrected during voting. (Defs. ' Resp. PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~~ 45-56.}
D. September 2010 Surveys During the September 2010 Primary Election, CIDNY surveyors
inspected 53 poll sites out of the 628 poll sites in Manhattan and Queens used in that election. (P1 s .' 56. 1. Stmt ., ~ ~ 62 - 63 . ) At P.S. 196, located at 71-25 113th Street in Queens, the accessible entrance was around a long block from the inaccessible entrance, and inside the voting area, a table obstructed the pathway to the BMD. (Id. ~ 64.) At P.S. 13, located at 55-01 94th Street, there was no sign at the inaccessible main entrance to direct voters to the accessible entrance. The door to the accessible entrance was locked and the bell did not work. Once inside, there was no signage to direct voters to take the elevator up to the voting area or to inform voters of which floor the voting area was located on. Once inside the voting area, the ADA privacy booth was placed so that it was inaccessible. (Id. , ~ 66.)
10 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 11 of 31
At VFW Post 2477, located at 89-07 Astoria Boulevard in Queens, the ramp was actually "two ramps put together" and was so steep that the CIDNY surveyor, Ramon Santos, "almost fell backward." (PIs .' 56 . 1 Stmt., , 68 . )
During the September 2010 election, Denise McQuade, who uses a wheelchair, went to vote at her polling place located at P.S. 102 in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. (Id., , 69.) When Ms. McQuade and her husband arrived at P.S. 102, they went to the rear of the building to enter the polling place through the accessible entrance. Upon opening a door, they saw "an extremely steep ramp-like a ski slope" that "appeared to be made of concrete and to be a permanent part of the building." Ms. McQuade was "very frightened to use the ramp because there was no landing at the top of the ramp and this would make [it] impossible for us to exit safely without assistance." (Id., , 70.) To enter P.S. 102, Ms. McQuade's husband had to push her wheelchair against the door, which opened inward, to enter. Immediately upon crossing the threshold of the entrance, her husband had to pull back on the handles of her wheelchair to keep her wheelchair "from plunging down the ramp at break-neck speed." (Id., , 71.) After voting, Ms. McQuade had to ask a policeman on duty for assistance in opening the door, because the door opened inward and there was
11 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 12 of 31
no landing. It would have been impossible for her husband to hold her wheelchair in place on the ramp and open the door. There was no poll monitor to assist Ms. McQuade. (Id., , 72.) After this experience at P.S. 102, Ms. McQuade was afraid to go back to vote during subsequent elections and "decided it would be safer for [her] to use an absentee ballot, than to try to enter the polling place again" even though she prefers to vote alongside her neighbors and community. (Id., , 73.) Ms. McQuade used an absentee ballot during the November 2011 election because of the barriers encountered in September 2010. (Id., ,74.)
The ramp at P.S. 102 is located at the only accessible entrance to the facility. Ms. McCoy measured the slope of the ramp and found that it was "significantly steeper than 1:12, which is what is required by the ADA." (PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., , 75.) Ms. McCoy suggested two alternative poll sites to replace P.S. 102, namely, Xaverian High School and the Bay Ridge Public Library. (Id., , 76.) Despite the BOE having knowledge regarding the ramp that was not ADA compliant at P.S. 102, that site was used again as a polling place during the November 2011 election. (PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., , 77.) Defendants admit as much, but state that the facility is scheduled to be made accessible in the near future and that no other facility has been determined to
12 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 13 of 31
meet the BOE's needs. In the interim, the BOE has notified all voters who are assigned to that poll site and offered to transfer their registration to an accessible poll site. (Defs.' Resp. PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 77.) Defendants do not state when they expect P.S. 102 will be made accessible or what efforts they have made to find an alternative poll site.
E. November 2010 Surveys During the November 2010 General Election, CIDNY inspected
53 polling places. (PIs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 78.) At P.S. 146, located at 98-01 159th Avenue in Queens, the slope of the ramp was steeper than the maximum 1:12 allowed. (Id., ~ 79.) At Sarasota Gold, located at 711 Seagirt Avenue, the BMD was placed four feet from the wall, making it extremely difficult for someone using a wheelchair or scooter to access the machine. (Id., ~ 80.)
F. BOE Surveys of Poll Sites, Site Selection, and Monitoring The BOE currently employs 25 full-time surveyors, each of
whom was trained and certified as competent to conduct poll site surveys by CIDNY. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 4.) The BOE previously determined that two poll sites were fully inaccessible. Those
13 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 14 of 31
sites are P.S. 119 in Brooklyn and P.S. 2 in Queens. Further surveying has revealed other sites that do not fully meet accessibility standards. (Defs.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 6.) Poll sites in the Bronx at 1591 Metropolitan Store Room and 2051 St. Raymonds Avenue were used in the November 2011 election. (PIs. ' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 57.) The BOE's surveyors at 1591 Metropolitan Store Room determined that the ramp was not ADA compliant because it had no handrails on the second ramp and a dangerous wood platform. (Id., ~ 59.) The BOE's surveyors at 2051 St. Raymonds Avenue determined that the ramp at that site was not ADA compliant because it had no landings or top platform. 60. )
The Board of Elections does not have an ADA coordinator or person designated as having primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with the ADA, as required by 28 C.F.R. 35.107. (PIs. ' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 85.) The BOE does not have an Accessibility Transition Plan or Written Plan pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 35.l50(d). (Id., ~ 86.)
A number of Board of Education sites (i.e., public schools) that are used as poll sites are not architecturally and structurally fully compliant with the ADA. (Id., ~ 88.) Defendants contend that such sites are made compliant to the
14 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 15 of 31
greatest extent possible using temporary measures, and Plaintiffs have not suggested alternative sites to replace the inaccessible ones. (Defs.' Resp. Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 88.) The BOE is not precluded from using private sites for polling places. Private sites receive a $70 stipend and can enter into lease agreements with the BOE to allow use as polling sites. (Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 93.) The BOE has a surveyor team that is responsible for searching for fully accessible voting sites as substitutes for sites that are inaccessible. (Id., ~ 95.) The State Board of Elections designated CIDNY as the entity to provide training and to certify BOE site surveyors as qualified. (Defs.' Resp. Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 98.)
On Election Day, the BOE is notified of some access barriers that arise at polling places and keeps track of these complaints. Examples of recent complaints in the November 2010 election include the absence of temporary ramps or ramp parts and the general inaccessibility of a site. (P1 s .' 56. 1 Stmt ., ~ 104.) Defendants' Call Incident Logs often fail to indicate that any action was taken in response to a complaint. In November 2010, Defendants received a complaint that P.S. 164 in Queens needed a ramp. The Call Incident Log does not indicate that Defendants ever responded to this complaint. (Pls.' 56.1 Stmt., ~ 106.)
15 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 16 of 31

That same election, P.S. 153 in Manhattan was reported as "no

ramp, no access." Again, Defendants Call Incident Log does not

indicate that any action was taken. (Id., ~ 108.)

During the November 2011 election, two complaints regarding

the BMD machines were made to the BOE regarding the Selis Manor

poll site located at 135 West 23rd Street in Manhattan.

115.) Selis Manor is a HUD building which consists of around 200

apartments and over 300 residents. Around 90% of the residents

are blind and 10% are mobility impaired. Selis Manor should have

two BMD machines. (Id., ~ 116.)

Paula Wolff, President of Plaintiff DIA, votes at Selis

Manor. When Ms. Wolff voted in 2011, at around 7:00 p.m., there

was only one BMD machine at the site, the machine was not

functioning, and poll workers were not trained properly on how to

work the machine. (Id., ~ 117.) BOE reports indicate that a

call complaining about the BMD machine came in at 2:46 p.m., but

that no one from BOE was dispatched and the machine was never repaired. (Id., ~ 119.) The poll worker had to read the ballots

to residents voting at Selis Manor and the voters told the poll

worker who they were voting for, thereby denying voters with

vision impairments the opportunity to vote independently. 56.1 stmt., ~ 120.)

(PIs.'

16 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 17 of 31
II. DISCUSSION 
 A. Summary Judgment Standard
A district court should grant summary judgment when there is Uno genuine dispute as to any material fact," and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Allianz Ins. Co. v. Lerner, 416 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2008). Genuine issues of material fact cannot be created by mere conclusory allegations. Victor v. Milicevic, 361 Fed. App'x 212, 214 (2d Cir. 2010). Summary judgment is appropriate only when, after drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of a non-movant, no reasonable trier of fact could find in favor of that party. Melendez v. Mitchell, 394 Fed. App'x 739, 740 (2d Cir. 2010).
In assessing when summary judgment should be granted, U[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non­ movant's] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Id. (citing Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir. 2005). The non-movant may not rely upon speculation and/or conjecture to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Burgess v. Fairpont Cent. Sch. Dist., 371 Fed. App'x 140, 141 (2d Cir. 2010). Instead, when the moving party has documented particular
17 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 18 of 31
facts in the record, "the opposing party must come forward with specific evidence demonstrating the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact." FDIC v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 607 F.3d 288, 292 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986». Establishing such evidence requires going beyond the allegations of the pleadings, as the moment has arrived "to put up or shut up." Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000). Thus, unsupported allegations in the pleadings cannot create a material issue of fact. Id.
A court faced with cross-motions for summary judgment need not "grant judgment as a matter of law for one side or the other," but "'must evaluate each party's motion on its own merits, taking care in each instance to draw all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration. III Heublein, Inc. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1455, 1461 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting Schwabenbauer v. Bd. of Educ. of Olean, 667 F.2d 305, 313-14 (2d Cir. 1981}).
B. ADA and Section 504 Claims Under Subtitle A of Title II of the ADA, "no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of
18 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 19 of 31
services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Similarly, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). In this Circuit, plaintiffs establish a prima facie violation of Title II when they show that: (1) plaintiffs are "qualified individuals" with a disability; (2) defendants are subject to the ADA; and (3) plaintiffs were denied the opportunity either to participate in or to benefit from defendants' services, programs, or activities, or were otherwise discriminated against by defendants, by reason of plaintiffs' disabilities. Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 272 (2d Cir. 2003). For purposes of Section 504, Plaintiffs must also establish that Defendants are recipients of federal funds. Id. at 272. The only element at issue here is element three, namely, whether Plaintiffs have shown sufficiently that they were denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from Defendants' voting program by reason of their disabilities.
19

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 20 of 31
Defendants first argue that Plaintiffs' claims must fail as there is no evidence that any voter has actually been deprived of the right to participate in an election. (Defs.' Mem. L. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, p. 10.) This interpretation, which would demand that an individual was actually deprived of the right to cast a ballot, is overly broad and unsupported by any precedent. It is abundantly clear that Defendants are obligated to provide a level of access to their voting program beyond the simple assurance that voters with disabilities are able to cast a ballot in some way, shape, or form.
Regulations promulgated by the DOJ to implement the ADA provide that "[a] public entity shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities." 28 C.F.R. § 35.150. It is well-established in this Circuit that although the ADA and its implementing regulations do not require "equal access" or "equal results" for individuals with disabilities, those individuals must be provided with "meaningful access" to a public entities programs and activities. See Civic Ass'n of the Deaf of New York City, Inc. v. City of New York, No. 95 Civ. 8591, 2011 WL 5995182, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2011) (finding that a
20 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 21 of 31
"meaningful access" rather than an "equal access" or "equal results" standard applied to ADA and Section 504 claimS}i see also Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 275 (finding that the measure is "whether the plaintiffs with disabilities could achieve meaningful access, and not whether the access the plaintiffs had (absent a remedy) was less meaningful than what was enjoyed by others.") (emphasis in original) .
In the voting context, another court in this District has found that "[flailing to ensure that disabled individuals are able to vote in person and at their assigned polling places-presumably the most commonly used method of voting-could not reasonably be construed as consistent with providing 'meaningful access' to the voting process." Westchester Disabled on the Move, Inc. v. County of Westchester, 346 F. Supp. 2d 473, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); see also Kerrigan v. Philadelphia Board of Election, No. 07 Civ. 687, 2008 WL 3562521, at *17-*18 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 14, 2008 (finding voting by absentee ballot or by emergency ballot at city hall an inadequate substitute for mobility­ impaired voters who encountered barriers at their assigned polling places on election day). It is no excuse that the BOE does not own the locations used as poll sites on election days,
21 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 22 of 31
as the ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual also provides
guidance on leased spaces:
Public entities are encouraged, but not required, to lease accessible space. The availability of accessible private commercial space will steadily increase over time as the title III requirements for new construction and alterations take effect. Although a public entity is not required to lease accessible space, once it occupies a facility, it must provide access to all of the programs conducted in that space. . . . Thus, the more accessible a space is to begin with, the easier and less costly it will be later on to make programs available to individuals with disabilities and to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who may need them. The Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Technical Assistance Manual, § 1I-6.4000 (available at
http://www.ada.gov/taman2.html) (last visited July 2, 20l2).
This Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of
material fact as to the existence of pervasive and recurring barriers to accessibility on election days at poll sites
designated by the BOE. Plaintiffs, through the use of CIDNY
surveys, have provided copious documentation of barriers at poll sites, ranging from ramps that are unsafe or missing to missing signage and improper placement of voting equipment and furniture in voting areas. Defendants themselves admit that more than two poll sites do not meet accessibility standards. (Defs.' Mem. L. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, p. 4.)
22

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 23 of 31
Nevertheless, the ADA does not, as Plaintiffs seem to suggest, require perfection. §ee, e.g., West:che~ter pisabled on the Move, 346 F. Supp. 2d at 480 (denying a motion for a preliminary injunction where the court found it unlikely that enough accessible structures existed and where modifications to existing structures would be "difficult, if not impossible" for the defendant board of elections to make alone); New York v. county of Delaware, 82 F. Supp. 2d 12, 18 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (recognizing that certain changes necessary to make poll sites fully accessible were not "feasible"); Hill v. New York State Board of Elections, 120 A.D.2d 55, 57 (N.Y. 2d Dep't 1986) (recognizing that the extent to which polling places must be made accessible involves "matters of administrative judgment, discretion and allocation of resources and priorities"). The ADA's implementing regulations themselves contemplate some flexibility. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150, which governs existing facilities, states:
(a) General. A public entity shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This paragraph does not-­ (1) Necessarily require a public entity to make each of its existing facilities accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities;
23 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 24 of 31
(2) Require a public entity to take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of an historic property; or
(3) Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with § 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
(b) Methods-­
(l) General. A public entity may comply with the requirements of this section through such means as redesign or acquisition of equipment, reassignment of services to accessible buildings, assignment of aides to beneficiaries, home visits, delivery of services at alternate accessible sites, alteration of existing facilities and construction of new facilities, use of accessible rolling stock or other conveyances, or any other methods that result in making its services, programs, or activities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. A public entity is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance with this section. A public
24 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 25 of 31
entity, in making alterations to existing buildings, shall meet the accessibility requirements of § 35.151. In choosing among available methods for meeting the requirements of this section, a public entity shall give priority to those methods that offer services, programs, and activities to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate.
28 C.F.R. § 35.150.
Likewise, the Rehabilitation Act's implementing regulations
also provide:
(a) A recipient shall operate each program or activity so that the program or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. This paragraph does not necessarily require a recipient to make each of its existing facilities or every part of an existing facility accessible to and usable by handicapped persons.
Accordingly, it is not self-evident, as Plaintiffs claim,
that a violation of Title II or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act necessarily follows when the BOE designates a poll site that
is less than ideally accessible, or when, over the course of an
election day, conditions arise that may render an otherwise
accessible poll site inaccessible in some way. Rather, to
demonstrate that individuals were deprived of an opportunity or
benefit or discriminated against by reason of their disabilities,
Plaintiffs must demonstrate that Defendants failed to undertake
some feasible measure to improve accessibility or, in other
25 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 26 of 31
words, that Defendants failed to provide disabled voters with reasonable accommodations. p~~ Henrietta D. v. BloQml;>erq, 331 F.3d at 279 (~In so interpreting the 'by reason of . . . disability' requirement, we are mindful of the fact that Title II seeks principally to ensure that disabilities do not prevent access to public service where the disabilities can reasonably be accommodated."); see also Kerrigan, 2008 WL 3562521, at *10 ("If Plaintiffs are able to make a prima facie showing of discrimination in violation of the ADA and RA, they have the additional burden 'of articulating reasonable accommodations that the defendant can make in order to comply with the ADA and the RA.'II) (citing Liberty Res. Inc. v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 528 F. Supp. 2d 553, 565 (E.D. Pa. 2007».
This burden, however, is hardly insurmountable. "It is enough for the plaintiff to suggest the existence of a plausible accommodation, the costs of which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits and that once the plaintiff has done this, she has made out a prima facie showing that a reasonable accommodation is available, and the risk of nonpersuasion falls on the defendant." Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 280; C.D. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., No. 05 Civ. 7945, 2009 WL 400382, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. II, 2009) ("A reasonable accommodation is one that
26 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 27 of 31
does not 'impose an undue hardship on the operation of [a] program or activity."') (quoting 45 C.F.R. § 84.l2(a».
Accordingly, summary judgment would be inappropriate at this stage if there were a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendants accommodate voters with vision and mobility­ related impairments. This Court finds that there is none.
Defendants allege that they accommodate voters with disabilities in essentially two ways: by offering voters assigned to inaccessible poll sites the opportunity to have their registration transferred to a nearby accessible poll site; and by addressing other barriers, such as inadequate signage or inappropriately-placed furniture, as they are made aware of those barriers, either through complaints or through their own monitoring process. The evidence shows, however, that both of these methods fall short.
Defendants claim that voters assigned to P.S. 119 in Brooklyn and P.S. 2 in Queens are given the opportunity to have their registration transferred to a nearby accessible site. (Defs.' Mem. L. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, p. 4.) By Defendants' own admission, however, P.S. 119 and P.S. 2 are not the only sites that are fully inaccessible due to aspects of building construction that cannot be remedied by temporary measures on
27 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 28 of 31
election days. (See, id.) The BOE fails to identify which other sites its surveys have revealed to be inaccessible, and does not make any representation that voters at those sites have been notified and offered the opportunity to have their registration transferred. Furthermore, Defendants have presented no evidence regarding their attempts to locate alternative poll sites to replace sites that are inaccessible.
Defendants concede that Rima McCoy suggested two alternative poll sites to replace P.S. 102 in Brooklyn, namely, Xaverian High School and Bay Ridge Public Library. (Defs.' Resp. PIs.' 56.1 Stmt ., ~ 76 . ) Nevertheless, they present no evidence that they ever evaluated these or any other sites as potential replacements. Instead, they claim that this suggestion is irrelevant in the absence of a representation from Ms. McCoy that her proposed sites are appropriate and available for use on election days. This Court declines to place such a burden on Plaintiffs in light of Defendants' utter failure to produce even a scintilla of evidence that they have evaluated these or any other sites in any way as potential replacements.
Defendants claim that poll workers are trained on accessibility issues, and that on election days, teams of monitors known as "AD Monitors" visit and inspect each poll site
28 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 29 of 31

at least twice during the election day to check for accessibility

issues, among other things. (Defs.' Mem. L. Supp. Mot. Dismiss,

pp. 5-6.) It is clear, however, that no reasonable jury could

find for Defendants on this point.

Plaintiffs have produced ample evidence of misplaced

equipment and inadequate signage by poll workers that have

reportedly been trained on accessibility issues, along with

numerous reports from AD Monitors indicating that poll sites were

not visited on election days,

Seaborn Decl. Ex. N), and

calls to the BOE regarding accessibility issues with no

resolution noted, (see Seaborn Decl. Ex. K). Defendants ask this

Court to infer that if one AD Monitoring Team did not visit a

poll site on election day, the poll site was visited by a

different team, and that accessibility complaints were remedied

even though no resolution was noted in the Call Incident Report.

Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

Defendants, however, this Court simply cannot draw the inference

Defendants advocate without a shred of evidence to support it.

Defendants' evidence consists of mere unsupported assertions and

conjecture that training is adequate and inspections are taking

place. These bare assertions are insufficient to create a

genuine dispute of material fact on this point. The only

29

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 30 of 31
conclusion that may be drawn from the evidence submitted in the Parties' respective Motions for Summary Judgment is that the Defendants have failed to accommodate reasonably voters with disabilities.
Plaintiffs, as an accommodation, have suggested that Defendants identify one individual among on-site poll workers at each location to monitor poll-site accessibility. Furthermore, Plaintiffs suggest that the BOE partner with a third party, such as CIDNY, to assess and identify accessibility needs and possible solutions prior to the 2012 Presidential Election in November. (PIs.' Mem. L. Supp. Mot. Summ. J., pp. 24-25.) The costs of these accommodations, on their face, do not clearly exceed the benefits in light of the significant evidence of Defendants' failures to provide poll sites that are as accessible as reasonably feasible. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted for Plaintiffs as to liability for their Title II and Section 504 Rehabilitation Act claims.
III. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED; and
30 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 105 Filed 08/08/12 Page 31 of 31 The case is referred to the Honorable Henry Pitman,
Magistrate Judge l for the determination of remedy consistent with 
 this Order. 
 SO ORDERED. 
 Dated: New York, New York 

Deborah A. Batts 
 United States District Judge 

31 


 
 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB Document 106 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 1

, ,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------X
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,

Plaintiffs,

-v. -

10 Civ. 5653 (DAB) MEMORANDUM & ORDER

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JULIE DENT, in her official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------X
DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.

Because of the short time involved before the September

primary, it is inappropriate for the Court to refer this case to

the Magistrate Judge; I thereby withdraw the reference to

Magistrate Judge Pitman. Parties shall appear before the Court

at 11:00 a.m. on August 27, 2012.

SO ORDERED. 


Dated:

New York, New York 
 August 8, 2002 


Deborah A. Batts united States District Judge

 
 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 1 of 129

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------X
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,

Plaintiffs,

-v. -

10 Civ. 5653 (DAB) ORDER

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JULIE DENT, in her official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------x
DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge.

On March 16, 2012, Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and

Disabled In Action (collectively, "Plaintiffs") and Defendants

Board of Elections in the City of New York ("BOE") and Julie

Dent, in her official capacity as President of the BOE

(collectively, "Defendants"), filed Motions for Summary Judgment

in the above-referenced matter. On August 8, 2012, this Court

entered a Memorandum and Order (the "August 8th Order"), which

granted Plaintiffs' Motion and denied Defendants' Motion. Since

its issuance of the August 8th Order, the Court has held three

hearings focused solely on the question of appropriate remedy.

By letter dated October 11, 2012, the Department of Justice,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517, appeared and submitted a proposed

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 2 of 129
Order for a remedial plan. Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, Uparties"), and the Department of Justice, were instructed to meet and confer to develop and propose a joint plan for the Court to consider before it entered a remedial Order in this matter. Having considered the parties' proposals and concerns, the Court hereby ORDERS that:
1. Accessible polling sites are and shall be the cornerstone of the voting accessibility program of the BOE. The BOE has an obligation to provide an accessible voting program under federal law.
2. The BOE shall maintain in operable working condition, on the day of any election, those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be provided by the BOE to make polling sites temporarily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.
3. Beginning with the November 6, 2012 General Election, and in all primary, special, and general elections held thereafter, the BOE shall designate one of the BOE's existing poll-site workers at every polling site in New York City as the on-site Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator on Election Day ("OnSite Accessibility Coordinator"). The BOE shall contract with the Center for the Independence of the Disabled, New York ("CIDNY"), the downstate regional Protection and Advocacy for
2

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 3 of 129
Voter Access office, to train each of the On-Site Accessibility Goordinators on poll-site accessibility prior to the November 6, 2012 General Election. After the November 6, 2012 General Election, the BOE may contract with a third-party, mutually agreed upon by the parties, to develop training for each of the On-Site Accessibility Coordinators on poll-site accessibility. The BOE shall contract with CIDNY to develop an Election Day poll-site accessibility checklist to be used by On-Site Accessibility Coordinators on the date of any election.
(a) The BOE shall compensate CIDNY for the services it provides pursuant to this Order at a rate determined by this Court.
(b) This paragraph does not require the BOE to hire any additional staff at its poll sites. 4. The BOE's On-Site Accessibility Coordinators shall document any accessibility complaints received on the date of any election. Plaintiffs shall provide forms for this documentation to the BOE. The BOE shall submit a report detailing accessibility complaints received by On-Site Accessibility Coordinators to Plaintiffs within 45 days of any primary, special, or general election held during the term of this Order, with the exception of Primary Elections occurring in September. For Primary Elections occurring in September, the BOE shall
3

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 4 of 129
provide reports detailing accessibility complaints for a sample 35 randomly selected poll-sites within 45 days of such primary elections. The parties shall communicate in writing regarding which sites shall be sampled at least 30 days prior to each September Primary Election.
5. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman, who is designated by this Court to oversee the implementation of this Order, including inter alia any and all disputes among the parties concerning payments, selection of Third Party Experts, and the poll-site surveys to be conducted pursuant to this Order.
6. Attachment A to this Order contains a list of poll-sites, including those with accessibility barriers, which the parties identified in advance of the hearing on remedies held on September 10, 2012. Following each Election Day, parties shall meet and confer, and make a joint submission to Judge Pitman of an updated version of Attachment A, which shall incorporate:
(a) any additional barriers at the BOE's poll sites; (b) the removal of any poll-sites identified from the BOE's list of active poll-sites; and (c) the removal of any poll-site barriers from the list where the parties agree that such barriers no longer exist at the identified poll-site.
4

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 5 of 129
The BOE shall ensure that the sites identified in the most updated version of Attachment A receive appropriate and sufficient temporary access features (such as portable ramps and sufficient signage) on the day of the election. For the November 6, 2012 General Election, the BOE shall, to the extent possible, ensure that the sites identified in Attachment A receive appropriate and sufficient temporary access features (such as portable ramps and sufficient signage) on that date.
7. Beginning with the November 6, 2012 General Election, and in all primary, special, and general elections held thereafter and during the term of this Order, Assembly District ("AD") Monitors employed by the BOE shall visit each polling site twice on the date of any such election to assess the accessibility of the poll site. The first visit to each site shall occur at least four hours prior to the second, and the AD Monitors shall, during said visits, take immediate steps to assist on-site poll workers to remedy any access barriers at the site, including, but not limited to, missing ramps, missing signage, and paths to voting machines that cannot accommodate persons with disabilities due to insufficient width.
(a) The AD Monitors shall complete CIDNY's poll-site accessibility training prior to November 6, 2012.
(b) Prior to each election held during the term of
5

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 6 of 129
this Order, the BOE shall communicate in writing to each AD Monitor visiting a polling site at which the BOE agreed to or was required by Court Order to implement a temporary modification, pursuant to Paragraph 15 of this Order. The communication shall identify the temporary modifications that are necessary to implement at that site.
(c) The AD Monitors shall document the results of their visits. The report shall state whether each temporary modification to which the BOE agreed pursuant to Paragraph 15, or was ordered to implement, was in fact implemented when the AD Monitors arrived at the polling site. If one or more of the temporary modifications was not implemented when the AD Monitors arrived at the polling site, the AD Monitors' report shall also state:
(1) the time the AD Monitor informed an on-site poll worker of the failure to implement the temporary modification;
(2) the name of the on-site poll worker with whom the AD Monitors spoke regarding the failure to implement the temporary modification; and
(3) whether the temporary modification was implemented before the AD Monitors left the polling site.
6

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 7 of 129
(d) Within 45 days of the date of any election, Defendants shall submit a report to Plaintiffs detailing:
(1) all access barriers found by the AD Monitors; and
(2) any temporary modifications that the BOE failed to implement. A sample form for this report is attached to this Order as Attachment B. 8. Defendants shall contract with, and provide reasonable compensation to, an independent third-party with expertise in voting accessibility ("Third Party Expert") to conduct poll-site accessibility surveys of the polling sites in New York City. The parties shall attempt to come to an agreement regarding the selection of the Third Party Expert. If the Parties cannot agree on the Third Party Expert by January 10, 2013, however, the parties shall, in writing, brief Judge Pitman as to their respective recommendations for the Third Party Expert. Judge Pitman shall designate the Third Party Expert. 9. The BOE will cooperate fully with the Third Party Expert as it conducts its survey work including, but not limited to, providing the Third Party Expert with assistance in accessing polling sites on non-election days and providing access to
7

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 8 of 129
election district maps and other reasonably requested information, including the identification of the voting area at each polling site, in a timely manner.
10. Beginning January 2013, the Third Party Expert will conduct surveys of as many polling sites as practicable, with a goal of no fewer than 120 polling sites every two months (the "Survey Period") .
11. The Third Party Expert shall use the survey instrument, attached hereto as Attachment C, to evaluate polling sites pursuant to Paragraph 10 of this Order. In addition, the Third Party Expert will include photographs of relevant features at each polling site to accompany the survey instrument.
12. Within 20 days of the end of each Survey Period, the Third Party Expert shall provide to the BOE and the Plaintiffs, copies of all survey instruments completed and photographs compiled during the previous Survey Period.
13. Within 30 days of the end of each Survey Period, the Third Party Expert will report to Judge Pitman, the BOE, and the Plaintiffs, in writing, with the results of the surveys completed pursuant to Paragraph 10 of this Order and its recommendations regarding polling place locations that are not accessible (the "Report"). Each Report shall state:
(a) Whether each surveyed polling site can reasonably
8

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 9 of 129
be modified temporarily to be accessible on the day of any election after November 6, 2012, and, if so,
(i) what temporary modifications can be made, and (ii) how such modifications can be accomplished; (b) If the polling site is located in a publicly-owned building, whether it is reasonable to modify permanently any accessible polling site to make it accessible and how such modifications would be made; and (c) Whether a temporary sign should be posted to direct voters with disabilities to an alternate accessible entrance, and where the sign should be posted. 14. If the Report concludes that a surveyed polling site cannot reasonably be modified temporarily, the BOE shall report to the Plaintiff and the Third Party Expert, within 60 days of receipt of the Report, in writing, whether that polling site can be relocated to a building that is accessible or can reasonably be made temporarily accessible, and the specific location(s) it recommends as the relocation site. In determining whether a polling site can reasonably be relocated, the BOE shall consider the following criteria: (a) Whether the proposed relocation site is in the same election division that the polling site serves or an election division adjacent to the election division that the
9

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 10 of 129
polling site serves; (b) Whether there are any significant dangers or
obstacles that would preclude pedestrians from traveling safely to the proposed location, such as a park or major road or highway that cannot be safely traversed;
(c) Whether the building in which the polling site is proposed to be relocated is of sufficient size to accommodate a polling site or, if a polling site is already located there, whether the building is of sufficient size to accommodate an additional polling site; and
(d) Whether the location is unable to accommodate a polling site for mechanical or other physical or operational reasons. If the BOE recommends a relocation site that is not accessible but can reasonably be made temporarily accessible, the BOE also will identify what temporary modifications can be made and how such modifications can be made. 15. As set forth under subsections (a) and (b) of this Paragraph, the BOE will implement recommendations made by the Third Party Expert Pursuant to Paragraph 13 of this Order, subject to its ability to challenge the recommendation under subsection (c) of this Paragraph.
10

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 11 of 129
(a) Other than the when excepted pursuant to subsection (c) of this Paragraph, during the term of this Order, the BOE shall implement all recommendations of the Third Party Expert to which it has agreed, beginning in the elections immediately subsequent to their agreement, unless
(i) the BOE's agreement was made within 45 days before the next election; and
(ii) the BOE determines that it is in its best interest to implement the recommendation in the next subsequent election, in which case the recommendation will be implemented in the next subsequent election. (b) During the term of this Order, other than when excepted pursuant to subsection (c) of this Paragraph, the BOE will, in the next election subsequent to any additional Order issued by the Judge Pitman, implement said Orders, unless the Orders are appealed to this Court. (c) If the BOE concludes that
(i) it cannot reasonably implement a recommendation;
(ii) relocation of the polling site to an alternate location is a more appropriate response to the recommendation; or
(iii) a polling site cannot be relocated;
11

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 12 of 129
then the BOE shall notify the Third Party Expert and the Plaintiffs and meet and confer with the Third Party Expert and the Plaintiffs (or their representatives). If the BOE and the Third Party Expert or the Plaintiffs are unable to agree as to the implementation of a recommendation, the BOE may petition the Judge Pitman for relief from the applicable recommendation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to appeal. The BOE does not have to implement any recommendation from which it is seeking relief unless and until the Judge Pitman, or if appealed, a Final Order on Appeal, orders the BOE to implement the recommendation. 16. Attached to this Order is a survey instrument, Attachment C, which the BOE shall use to assess the accessibility of all future proposed polling site locations. The BOE shall continue to make accessibility a major criterion when it selects new locations for polling sites. The BOE shall continue its policy and practice of reviewing each newly proposed polling site location to determine whether it is accessible to persons with disabilities or could be made temporarily accessible before selecting a location as a polling site. 17. After the November 6, 2012 General Election, the Third Party Expert shall train employees of the BOE on using the survey
12

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 13 of 129
instrument and determining whether a polling site location is or Gan be made accessible. No later than 60 days before beginning the training, the Third Party Expert shall provide the BOE with a copy of the training materials that the Third Party Expert intends to use, and shall provide the BOE with a list of equipment and/or supplies the BOE inspectors will need to assess accurately the accessibility of the BOE's polling sites. During the term of this Order, the BOE may request additional training on a reasonable basis.
18. If at any time one of the parties desires to petition this Court to modify this Order, the party will promptly notify the other parties in writing, setting forth the facts and circumstances thought to justify modification, as well as the substance of the proposed modification. In such an instance, an in-person meeting between the parties shall be held prior to the petition to attempt resolution without Court intervention. Parties receiving notice of another party's intent to petition for modification of this Order shall notify the requesting party in a timely manner as to whether it will consent to the proposed modification.
19. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction over compliance with this Order through December 31, 2016. 30 days before the expiration of this period, the parties shall submit briefing to
13

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 14 of 129 the Court on the BOE's compliance with the Order, and make recommendations as to whether the Court should retain jurisdiction over the matter. SO ORDERED.
New York, New York October 18, 2012
THE HONORABLE DEBORAH A. BATTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 15 of 129
ATTACHMENT A POLLING SITES DESIGNATED AS INACCESSIBLE TO BE UPDATED WITH POLLING PLACE ACCESS SURVEY DATA FROM THE SEPTEMBER 2012 PRIMARY
AND THE NOVEMBER 2012 GENERAL ELECTION

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 16 of 129

Boroug , h

Poll Site

BRONX

PS 67 2924 Mohegan Ave PS 6 100 East Tremont Ave School Gym 1684 White Plains Road PS 102, 1827 Archer St. Basement 1920 McGraw Ave Basement 1595 Unionport Road Basement 2059 McGraw Ave Basement 2051 St. Raymonds Ave Store Room 1591 Metropolitan Ave Basement 9 Metropolitan Oval Parkchester Complex 1594 Unionport Road JHS 127 1560 Purdy St PS 12 255 Tratman Ave Glebe Ctr 2125 Glebe Ave PS 119 1075 Pugsley Ave PS47 1794 East 172 St. James Monroe HS Annex 1551 East 172 St. Holy Family Church 1971 Castle Hill Ave

2009

2010

2011

(1) No Accessible Entrance (BOE 350)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 17 of 129

IS 131 885 Bolton Ave PS 138 2060 Lafayette Ave
PS69 560 Thieriot Ave Comm Room 2050 Seward Ave
IS 174 456 White Plains Road Bronx CTR for Rehab 1010 Underhill Ave Grand Manor H.R.F. 700 White Plains Road Hostos Comm College 120 East 149th St.
PS 73 1020 Anderson Ave PS 11 1257 Ogden Ave
Apartment Bldg 1600 Sedgwick Ave PS 229 CES 275 Harlem Riv Pk Bridge Heights Sr. Citizen Ctr 200 West Tremont Ave Craftroom #1 1771 Popham Ave Antonia Diaz Houses 1454 Shakespeare Ave IS 306 40 West Tremont Ave

(1) Portable ramp not set up properly (BOE 4103)
(1) Signage not posted outside (BOE 3741)
(1) Elevator at accessible entrance out of order (BOE 4273) (2) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 4624)
(1) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 4740)
Voting booths set up in a public hallway: "Due to

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 18 of 129

IS 117 1865 Morris Ave PS 64 1425 Walton Ave PS 70 1691 Weeks Ave WM H Taft HS 240 East 172nd St. PS 53 -Annex 360 East 168th St. Church Hall 120 East 169th St JHS 145 1000 Teller Ave
County BLDG 851 Grand Concourse Daughters of Jacobs 1160 Teller Ave Comm Ctr 1155 University Ave Craftroom #1 1553 University Ave
Dodge HS 2474 Crotona Ave PS 32 690 East 183 St JHS 45 2502 Lorillard Place PS 23 Cafeteria 2151 Washington Ave PS 85 2400 Marion Ave PS46 279 East 196th St PS 9 3010 Briggs Ave

being placed in public hallway, there was a lot of traffic." (BGE 5106)
(1) Signage not properly posted outside (BGE 3973, 4337)
(1) BMD keys never arrived and the machine wasn't in use. No remedy.

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 19 of 129

,
Glad Tidings Assem 2 Van Cortlandt Ave E MS80 149 E. Mosholu Pkwy
PS33 2424 Jerome Ave PS86 2756 Reservoir Ave Fordham Hill Complex 2455 Sedgwick Ave PS 310 260 West Kingsbridge Rd MS 143 120 West 231 St Church of the Mediator 260 West 231 St Grace Dodge Vocational HS 2474 Crotona Ave Comm Room 555 Kappock St Jewish Home & Hospital 100 W. Kingsbridge Rd Comm Room 1880 Valentine ave PS 57 2111 Crotona Ave PS92 700 East 179 St. PS44 1825 Prospect Ave

Unable to reach Board of Elections. (BOE 108) "All outside signage" missing. (BOE 5004) "BMD not opened - keys not located." (BOE 5006)
(1) Signage for accessible entrance not properly

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 20 of 129

PS4 1701 Fulton Ave
PS50 1550 VYSE Ave PS 61 1550 Crotona Park East PS66 1001 Jennings St PS 55 450 St. Pauls Place PS 132 450St Pauls Place PS 63 1260 Franklin Ave C.1.5. 148 36303 Ave Morris HS 100 Jackson Ave, Ent.2 PS 120 890 Cauldwell Ave PS 146 968 Cauldwell Ave BX Regional HS 1010 Stebbins Ave IS 166 250 East 164 St Community Room 3131 Park Ave
Comm Room 595 Trinity Ave PS 130 750 Prospect Ave
PS 29 758 Courtlandt Ave PS 186 750 Jennings St Comm Room 777 Concourse Village East

posted (BOE 3825)
(1) Signage: Directional arrows not posted outside (BOE 3871) (1) Signage for accessible entrance not posted (BOE 4612) (1) Signage not posted outside at first visit (BOE

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 21 of 129

,

Lebanon Spec Care

1265 Fulton Ave

Comm Center

1950 Hutchinson

River Pkwy

Apt House

1720 Mayflower Ave

Bronx House

990 Pelham

Parkway South

Bronx Psych Center

1500 Waters Place

PS 108 1166 Neill Ave

PS 83 Annex 1840 Bogart Ave School Gym PS 105 725 Brady Ave PS 96 650 Waring Ave Chris Columbus HS 925 Astor Ave Carriage Room 785 Pelham Pky No PS89 980 Mace Ave PS97 1375 Mace Ave IS 144 2545 Gunther Ave JHS 135 2441 Wallace Ave PS 76 900 Adee Ave
Parkside Senior CT 644 Adee Ave Social Center 2968 Bronx Park Est PS 121 2750 Throop Ave Immaculate

3868)
(1) Signage for accessible entrance not properly posted (BOE 4126)
(1) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 4451)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 22 of 129

Conception

,

754 East Gun Hill

Road

PS 41

3352 Olinville Ave

St Brendans School 268 East 207 St PS8 3010 Briggs Ave Vladeck Hall 74 Van Cortlandt Park South Comm Room 40 West Mosholu PkwyS Lobby 3410 Paul Ave Kingsbridge Man Hgts 3422 Cannon Place Beth Abraham 612 Allerton Ave St. Patrick's Home 66 Van Cortlandt Park South PS94 3530 Kings College Place

Comm Center 3450 Dekalb Ave PS 103 4125 Carpenter Ave PS 16 4550 Carpenter Ave
PS 19

(1) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 3857)
(1) Most signage never arrived (BOE 4171)
(1) Signs for Accessible entrance not properly posted (BOE 3707) Second AD Team: (2)"No signage outside." (BOE 5002)
(1) Accessible entrance closed, no door clerk present (BOE 4234)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 23 of 129

4318 Katonah Ave

,

Manhattan College

3840 Corlear Ave

Fort Independence

Houses

3350 Bailey Ave

Hebrew Inst of

Riverdale

3700 Henry Hudson

Pkwy

Draddy Hall

4513 Manhattan

College Pkwy

PS81

5550 Riverdale Ave

YMYWHA

5625 Arlington Ave

MS/HS 141

660 West 237 St

The Arbor

West 235 St &

Arlington Ave

Auditorium

2995 Independence

Ave

Basement

25 Knolls Crescent

Mt Hebon Bap

Church

732 East 233 St

Hebrew Home

5901 Palisade Ave

St. Francis Dechantal 190 Hollywood Ave Civic Hall 3300 Locust Pt Dr & Tierney PI Vol Fire House Edgwater Pk PS 72 2951 Dewey Ave

(1) No door clerk present (BOE 4220)
No indication signage is present but note from AD Monitor: "Signage not needed. All we on premises." (BOE 4958)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 24 of 129

Preston High School

,

2780 Schurz Ave

Senior Center Lounge 2705 Schley Ave IS 192 650 Hollywood Ave PS 101 2750 Lafayette Ave PS 14 3041 Bruckner Boulevard Presbyterian Church 3051 East Tremont Ave PS 194 2365 Waterbury Ave

PS 71 3040 Roberts Ave Hall 3243 Ampere Ave Church Hall 3573 Bruckner Boulevard PS 175 200 City Island Ave

Community Center #2 2049 Bartow Ave Community Center

(1) Sign age not properly posted outside (BOE 4483)
(l)Exterior accessible entrance doors closed. "Outer doors were closed because of school children." (BOE 5029)
(2)Pre-cleared accessible poll site schematic appears to not be followed: "Things moved around because of safety for children." (BOE 5030) (1) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 4503)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 25 of 129

#3

,

135 Einstein Loop

Comm Cent AUD

177 Dreiser Loop

Olivett Gospel Asbly

3900 Dyre Ave

Holy Rosary Church

2950 Eastchester

Road

PS 78 1400 Needham Ave Apartment Building 3410 Dereimer Ave Community Center 3016 Yates Ave Comm Room 745 Magenta St St Luke's Church 777 East 222 St
PS 113 3710 Barnes Ave Comm Room 3856 Bronx Boulevard
Baychester Youth Center 1220 East 229th St Edenwald Comm Center 1150 East 229 St PS 68 4011 Monticello Ave Boston Secor / Comm Center 3540 Bivona St Mount St. Michael 4300 Murdock Ave

Laconia Nursing Home

(1) Signage for accessible entrance not posted properly (BOE 4465)
(1) Signage not posted properly outside (BOE 4457)
(1) Signage for accessible entrance not posted properly, no directional arrows (BOE 4433)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 26 of 129

1050 East 230 St

,

Walker Memorial

Church 120 East 169th St

IS 183 Gymnasium

339 Morris Ave

PS 154

333 East 135 St

Millbrook Comm Ctr

201 St. Anns Ave

PS 220

468 East 140 St

Borinquen Ct.

Houses

285138 St

Comm Room

375 East 143 St

Comm Room 225 East 149th St

Craftroom 277 East 153 St Carmen Parsons Sr Ctr 441 East 155th St Apt. Building 372 East 152 St Trinity Comm Ctr 595 Trinity Ave

PS 1 335 East 152 St
PS227 519 St Anns Ave Community Room 401 St Anns Ave Gilbert Ramirez Hses 455 East 138 St PS 65 677 E 141 St

(1) Signage for accessible entrance not posted properly (BOE 4572)
(1) Accessible entrance door closed, no door clerk present (BOE 4533) (1) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 4560)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 27 of 129

PS 5

,

564 Jackson Ave

S Gompers HS

455 Southern

Boulevard

Maria Isabel

Housing

787 East 149 St

PS 62

660 Fox Street

PS48

1290 Spofford Ave

IS 183/ MS 203

339 Morris Ave

Harding Pk Comm

Ctr

1820 Harding Park

PS 107

1695 Seward Ave

Comm Center

1000 Rosedale Ave

PS 77

1250 Ward Ave

PS 152

1007 Evergreen Ave

PS 123

1025 Morrison Ave

PS93

1535 Story Ave

PS 150

920 East 167 Street

PS 75

984 Faile Street

IS 116

977 Fox Street

PS 60

888 Stebbins Ave

IS 74

730 Bryant Ave

(1) AD Comment "room is too far from entrance, and too small!" (BOE 1400)
(2)Second AD Monitoring Team: 5:40 pm "The old ramp (handicap)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 28 of 129

PS 109 1771 ham Ave PS 26 1930 Andrews Ave Sr Citizen HSE 228 West Tremont Ave PS 15 2195 Andrews Ave IS 206 2280 ueduct Ave PS 91 2200 Aqueduct Ave

PS 79 125 East 181 St

Apt House 230 East 179 St PS 163 2075 Webster Ave

PS 28

Brookly n

PS 631

76 Riverdale Ave

PS 184

273

rt Street

PS328

330 Alabama Ave

was not used. New ramp was harder to use and was a larger distance to travel." (BOE 2742)
Exterior doors not easily opened frm the outside and no door clerk present. "Used front walkway and rap. Door locked at old ra " Id.

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 29 of 129

Center

,

576 Blake Ave

PS 149

700 Sutter Ave

PS 13 557 Pennsylvania Ave PS 158 400 Ashford Street PS 72 605 Shepherd Ave Ps 159 2781 Pitkin Ave Manta Rosa Sports Club 3386 Atlantic Ave PS 2181S 370 Fountain Ave Linden PLZ Assoc 735 Lincoln Ave Linden Plaza Building 675 Lincoln Ave Apartment Building 760 Eldert Lane PS 190 590 Sheffield Ave PS 202 Hegeman Ave PS 260 875 Williams Ave PS 213 Mini School 1965 Linden Boulevard PS 36 2045 Linden Boulevard
L.H. Pink c.c.
2702 Linden Boulevard PS 224 755 Wortman Ave Bldg 13 12399 Flatlands Ave PS 273 923 Jerome St

(l)Ramp not set up properly (BOE 1039)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 30 of 129

Blvd Comm Ctr

,

726 Stanley Ave

PS306

970 Vermont St

Bldg8 200 Cozine Ave PS279 1070 East 104 St Breukelen's Project 715 East 105 Street Vandalia Ctr 47 Vandalia Ave PS346 1400 Pennsylvania Ave IS 364 Annex 1461 Geneva Loop IS 364 1426 Freeport Loop Ruby Weston Manor 2237 Linden Bvd
Bklyn United Methodist 1485 Dumont Ave Adult Home 2830 Pitkin Ave Tilden HS 5800 Tilden Ave PS 251 1037 East 54 St PS 208 4801 Avenue D PS 68 JHS 956 East 82 Street

l)Ramp not set up properly and problem was not corrected 2) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. "Principal moved schematics" . (BOE 1057)
(l)Missing BMD Pedal and headphones (BOE 1022)
(1) Directional signage to accessible entrance

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 31 of 129

, Basement 5816 Farragut Road PS 203 5101 Avenue M IS 395 / PS 109 10001 East 54 Street
Howard Apartments 1655 Flatbush Ave PS 119 3829 Avenue K Early Childhood Ctr 3920 Flatlands Ave PS 193 2515 Avenue L PS 197 1599 East 22 Street
J Madison HS 3787 Bedford Ave
Kings Bay YM-YWHA 3495 Nostrand Ave PS 206 2200 Gravesend Neck Road PS 277 2529 Gerritsen Ave PS 194 3093 Avenue W

missing, not rectified. (BOE 373)
(1) AD Comment "BMD was broken. Was tried to be fixed. Couldn't or wasn't./I (BOE 369)
(1) No signage posted outside (AD Monitors had to do it)
(2) Ramp not properly set up.
(3) No door clerk (BOE 535-536) (1) "Due to construction, 2nd floor doorways too narrow for wheelchairs - they have to take a complicate route between several rooms./I (BOE 356)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 32 of 129

IS 14

,

2424 Batchelder

Street

PS 286 2525 Haring Street PS 52 2675 East 29 Street Crown NH 2457 Nostrand Ave

Apt Hse Lobby 1641 Ocean Ave Ed R Murrow HS 1600 Avenue L Midwood Branch Library 975 East 16th Street Plaza Comm Rm 920 East 17 Street

PS 152/ PS 315 725 East 23 Street Marlborough Grdns 386 Marlborough Rd PS 139 330 Rugby Road

(1) BMD broken (missing parts). No indication it was fixed. (BOE 387)
(1) BMD became jammed and continued to have problems. (BOE 384)
1) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. "Floor plan for this site is incorrect. Cannot set up as indicated. Water (some sort of leakage) on the floor, dripping, by accessibility entrance."
2)"Accessibility entrance: must go over speed bump, raised portion of sidewalk, downward slope" (BOE 1269)
(l)AD Comment:
"Site is definitely

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 33 of 129

PS 6 43 Snyder Ave
PS 249 18 Marlborough Road PS 269 1957 Nostrand Ave PS 181 1023 New York Ave
IS 246 72 Veronica Place Stuy-Park Houses 77 New York Ave Friends of Crown Hts 671 Prospect Place PS 289 900 St Marks Ave PS 138 760 Prospect Place Crown Heights Apts 1055 St Johns Place David Chavis Apts 230 Kingston Ave Crown Grdns Comm Ctr 1185 Carrol Street PS 161

not in compliance with regulations consistent with HAVA. Voters are walking from stage (sign up) up a hill! aisle to privacy booths. After marking ballot, back down to vote on scanner. After voting, back up hill! aisle to exit (BOE 1124) (l)BMD machine out of order as of 540 pm. Would not power up. (BOE 1173)
(l)Keys for BMD not delivered. Open as of 4:50pm (BOE 1176)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 34 of 129

330 Crown Street St Marks Day School 1346 President Street PS 167 1025 Eastern Parkway PS 91 532 Albany Ave PS 221 Mini School 900 Montgomery Street PS 611S 400 Empire Boulevard Reid Comm Rm 728 East New York Ave Silver Hses 810 Midwood Street
PS397 490 Fenimore Street PS235 525 Lenox Road PS 135 684 Linden Boulevard
God's Battalion CH 661 Linden Boulevard
PS 92 601 Parkside Ave Middle School 2 655 Parkside Ave Dr. Susan McKinney 594 Albany Ave John Jay HS 2377 Ave

(l)Not visited (no time noted and no survey boxes checked) (BOE 499)
(l)"Wheel chair ramp is being assembled at 10:30am" (BOE 1164)
(1) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. AD Comment is that Poll workers set up

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 35 of 129

MS51 3505 Ave
Hall 3398 Street
PS 107 13018 Ave Park Slope YMCA 36115 Street Bishop Boardman Apartments 16158 Ave PS 10 5117 Ave
1588 5447 Ave

poll room as they saw fit because the floor plan didn't work for the space provided. (BOE 90)
(2)Later: AD Commented with regard to persons who are handicapped "Need more door clerks because poll site room was moved to the 1st floor./I (BOE 1114) (1) BMD keys did not arrive until 8:30am. (BOE 105) {l)Ramp is missing hand rails.
(2)BMD keys not delivered (BOE 1108)
{l)Ramp not set up properly (BOE 1117) (1) Wrong key for BMD. Problem not remedied until 2pm. (2) No evidence of properly posted directional signs to accessible polling place entrance. {BOE 07-08 and

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 36 of 129

,

PS 154

162511 Ave

Rose Gardens Assoc 829 Greenwood Ave PS 130 70 Ocean Parkway

PS230 1 Albemarle Road

PS 164 421114Ave PS 131 4305 Ft Hamilton Parkway PS 179 480 East 3rd Street
PS 62 JHS 700 Cortelyou Road Marien Heim Ctr 870 Ocean Parkway Agudath Sr Ctr 817 Ave H

BOE 102) (l)Door clerk walked out at 9am (BOE 1111)
(l)AD Comments: "Need more wheelchair signs"
(2)"BMD machine non-functional"
(BOE 1131-1133)
(l)AD Comment: "Accessible entrance is FAR from poll site"
(2)Accessible entrance interior doors are obstructed.
(BOE 1129)
(l)"This site needs more wheelchair signs" (BOE 1137) (l)No door clerk. (1126)
(l)Exterior accessible entrance closed, not easily opened from outside.
(2)lnterior doors obstructed (BOE

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 37 of 129

,

PS 217

1100 Newkirk Ave

PS99

1120 East 10 Street

Cortelyou Br Library 1305 Cortelyou Road JHS 62 700 Cortelyou Road Palm Gardens 615 Ave C PS 195 131 Irwin Street Bay Academy - IS 98 1401 Emmons Ave JASA Comm Ctr 161 Corbin Place Rec Room 1311 Brightwater Ave

PS 209 2609 East 7 Street St Marks School 2602 East 19 Street PS 254 1801 Ave Y

PS 216 350 Ave X PS 153 1970 Homecrest Ave

PS 234 IS 1875 East 17 Street Sephardic Comm Ctr 1901 Ocean

1151)
(l)No signs at the alternate accessible entrance. (BOE 520)
(l)No Key for the BMD. Two telephone calls made. No indication of remedy. (BOE 564)
(l)"There was not enough room for all of the privacy booths and very little room for anything else." (BOE 555)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 38 of 129

Parkway

,

PS 238

1633 East 8 Street

St Brendans House

1215 Avenue 0

PS 177 346 Avenue P

PS 185 8601 Ridge Boulevard

PS 104 91155 Ave
Apt House 28 Marine Ave

Apt House 9000 Shore Road St John's Ch & Sr Ctr 461 99 Street Downstate SUNY Med Ctr 69192 Street
Our Savior's Church

(l)BMD not functional. (BOE 546) (1) Not visited except to drop off closing materials, not surveyed during election day. (BOE 214) (1) AD Comment "Entrance is through lunch room and aisle may be too narrow for wheelchair." (BOE 329) (1) No door clerk.
(2) AD comment: "Space too small." (BOE 341-342) (1) Signage not properly posted outside main entrance.
(2) Accessible entrance doors closed.
(3) No door clerk present. AD Comment: "A door clerk would help" (BOE 334-335)
(1) No door clerk. (BOE 338)
(1) No door clerk at

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 39 of 129

41480 Street ,
PS 201 JHS 8010 12 Ave PS204 810115 Ave
PS229 1400 Benson Ave Co-Op 2475 West 16 Street Marlboro Comm Ctr 2298 West 8 Street Youth Center 2735 Harway Ave Co-Op Bldg 5C 545 Neptune Ave Co-Op 2770 West 5 Street Co-Op 425 Neptune Ave W Grady Voc HS 25 Brighton 4 Road YWHA

alternative accessible entrance. (BOE 413)
(1) AD Comment "This site needs more handicap signs due to an inconvenient handicap accessible location. (at least 8 requested in AM)." (BOE 145)
(2) Later in the day: No sign for alternative accessible entrance. AD Comment "Not enough signs."
(3) AD comment "2 people wheel away." (BOE 322)
(1) No door clerk at this site. (BOE 182)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 40 of 129

.

3300 Coney Island Ave

Brightwater Comm

Rm

SOlA Surf Ave

Trump Village Bldg 2

3000 Ocean

Parkway

Co-Op 458 Neptune Ave Co-Op 2935 West 5 Street Co-Op 444 Neptune Ave Trump Village Bldg 1 2940 Ocean Parkway Co-Op 2820 Ocean Parkway Co-Op 2785 West 5 Street

(1) AD Comment "Accessible ramp/ entrance is through the tenant area and a key is needed for the door."
(2) "There were not enough poll workers for a door clerk."
(3) No sign marking the alternative handicapped entrance or the directions to the alternative accessible entrance. (BOE 259-260)
(1) AD Comment "Room too cluttered for a wheelchair."
(2) "Every year the inspectors and voters complain about the therapy

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 41 of 129

,
Co-Op Bldg 7 2942 West 5 Street Co-Op 2928 West 5 Street PS90 2840 West 12 Street
Liberation High School 2865 West 19 Street PS 288 2950 West 25 Street Haber House 3024 West 24 Street PS 329 2929 West 30 Street Comm Rm Bid #2 3030 Surf Ave NYCHA Project 2945 West 33 Street Chapel 3715 Surf Ave Sea Rise Apts 2750 West 33 Street
PS 95 345 van Sicklen Street Shore View NH 2865 Brighton 3 St Youth Ctr 2735 Harway Ave Contello Towers #2 2740 Cropsey Ave

room. It is never emptied out and the space inappropriate for its use!" (BOE 308)
(1) No door clerk. (BOE 266)
(1) No signage posted, or delivered. (2) No BMD delivered in the morning. (3) No record of either issue being fixed. (BOE 277)
(1) AD Comment "Door clerk needed

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 42 of 129

Bldg 1 Comm Rm 2630 Cropsey Ave Regina Pacis 2424 Cropsey Ave PS 97 1855 Stillwell Ave Beach Haven Ctr 675 AveZ IS 228 228 Ave S & W 4 St
PS 281JHS 878724Ave Apt Bldg 886920 Ave

for accessible entrance doors." (BOE 188).
(1) "No door clerk assigned" (BOE 194) (1) Accessible entrance signs not properly posted.
(2) AD Comment "Handicapped entrance not changed - requires an elevator."
(3) No Door clerk at accessible entrance.
(4) Accessible entrance appears shut for some of the day from AD Comment: "Door clerk cannot be at place assigned during recess when children are in the school yard. Must go back to original space. This doesn't work." (BOE 223225)
(1) AD Comment "Dark, dingy, inadequate lighting, and

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 43 of 129

,
IS 281 878724Ave PS 128 8310 21 Ave PS682 50 Ave P PS 247 700021 Ave IS96 99 Ave P
PS205 670120 Ave PS 226 600623 Ave
PS 121 530120 Ave Haym Salomon Home 2340 Cropsey Ave

bathrooms unsanitary - voting area confined, pipes exposed."
(2) Key for BMD machine missing. (BOE 197)
(l)Only visited to drop off closing materials, not surveyed during election day. (BOE 229)
(l)Only visited except to drop off closing materials, not surveyed during election day. (BOE 217)
(1) Signage was not properly posted outside. AD monitor reported they were not able to locate a sign to post outside.
(2) No directional arrows to the accessible entrance.
(3) No signs

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 44 of 129

Friends Field 1310 East 4 Street PS 192 471518Ave PS 223 IS 420016 Ave PS 180 560116 Ave PS 105 1031 59 Street PS 160 5105 Ft Hamilton Parkway PS 220JHS 48129 Ave PS 176 1225 Bay Ridge Ave IS 259 7301 Ft Hamilton Parkway

posted. (4) No door clerk. (BOE 211)
l)Signage not posted outside "Wind blew off" 2)Signage marking accessible entrance inadequate 3)Directional signage to accessible entrance inadequate AD Comment: "People little lazy about making sure sing don't flyaway" 4) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. "School used space for their own use, set up chairs where

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 45 of 129

,
PS 127 78057 Ave PS 69 63029 Ave
St Agatha 73648 Street PS 170 71096 Ave
PS 506 I 503 I 314
343 60 Street Telecommunication s HS 35067 Street IS 187 1171 65 Street PS/IS 180 560116 Ave PS 227 JHS 650016 Ave
PS 163 1664 Benson Ave New Utrecht HS 1601 80 Street

there were supposed to be privacy booths." (BOE 957 - 958)
(l)"Door person Marie Laurusso is unable to properly do her job." (BOE 962)
(1) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. "Site was not according to schematic.... Site seemed too crowded and confusing" (BOE 483) (1) Handicapped sign age missing. (BOE 49)
(1) AD Comment "The set-up could be a problem for a handicap person. If elevator is not working they cannot vote in basement" (BOE 165)
(1) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 46 of 129

PS 186 760119 Ave PS48 601518 Ave PS 200 1940 Benson Ave Kingsview Comm Hall 130 St Edwards Street PS46 100 Clermont Ave
PS 20 225 Adelphi Street
PS67 51 St Edwards Street

schematic: AD Comment "I was informed that the poll site location was wrong and the school hasn't complied for the last 15 years. The lobby is no place for the poll site." (BOE 138)
(l)Ramp not set up properly. AD Comment: "Ramp has not hand rails then steep incline inside building and raised section between two sections" (BOE 931) (l)"Main entrance has broken asphalt and steep slope before you reach the ramp" (BOE 928) 1) "Ramp has no hand rails. Very difficult to locate around building. Ramp location needs improvement at this school"
2) "Ramp for

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 47 of 129

PS270 241 Emerson PI PS 157 850 Kent Ave PS380 370 Marcy Ave
PS307 209 York Street IS 71 215 Heyward Street PS 16 157 Wilson Street Towers Sr Ctr 114 Taylor Street Williams Ctr 323 Roebling Street PS 250 108 Montrose Ave PS 19 325 South 3 Street Village Comm Room 60 Division Ave JHS 50 183 South 3 Street PS84 250 Berry Street PS 17 208 North 5 Street
JHS 126 424 Leonard Street McGuiness Sr Ctr 715 Leonard Street PS34 131 Norman Ave PS 132 320 Manhattan Ave St Francis Ch Hall 213 Woodpoint Road

handicapped not marked well enough with signs" (BOE 934)
(l)AD Comment "Site too small for not only public but poll workers as well" (BOE 920)
(l)No door clerk. (BOE 910) (l)No door clerk (BOE 904)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 48 of 129

St Cecelia

,

24 North Henry

Street

PS 110

124 Monitor Street

Dupont Sr Hses

80 Dupont Street

PS 15 New

71 Sullivan Street

PS 27

27 Huntington

Street

PS 142 JHS 610 Henry Street

PS 172 8254Ave PS 24

(l)Missing all BMD supplies (BOE 947)
(1) No hand rail on ramp.
(2) AD Comment: "Portable ramp was flimsy" ... and "is not safe, too light, and should be replaced."
(3) No indication either problem was corrected (BOE 20-21) (1) No signage because sign age not in the supply cart.
(2) No handicapped signage at the accessible entrance.
(3) No directional arrow signage.
(4) Signage problems couldn't be corrected.
(5) No door clerk for accessible entrance. (BOE 112)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 49 of 129

427 39 Street PS 136 JHS 40044 Ave PS 1 30947 Street PS 169 43057 Ave West End Gardens 1006 44 Street PS94 5010 6 Ave PS971 62144 Ave PS 314/503/506 343 60 Street PS58 330 Smith Street PS 321 1807 Ave
PS 282 1806 Ave
PS 9 New 80 Underhilll Ave Bethel Baptist Ch 265 Bergen Street

(1) Site not compliant with precleared accessible schematic. "Principal refused to let the coordinator set up at the designated site and moved the site from the gym to the auditorium." (BOE 99)
(l)"Missing BMD book (not received)" (BOE 644)

landing at top of the ramp blocked by placement of table interfears with ability to turn (photo)
2 leaf innter door only one leaf open (opening

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 50 of 129

,
Wyckoff Comm Ctr 280 Wyckoff Street PS 38 450 Pacific Street
PS 261 314 Pacific Street Global Studies 284 Baltic Street PS 29 425 Henry Street

(1) No handicap signage at entrance.
(2) No directional sign age to the accessible entrance.
(3) Not able to locate sign age and rectify problem. No other indication problem was corrected. (BOE 79) (1) Interior doors closed and/or obstructed. (BOE 77)
AD Monitor Comments: (1) Accessible entrance door bell not working.
(2) No door clerk at accessible entrance.

27").
Area at top of interior ramp has tiles removed (?)
BMD set up against wall facing out (no privacy). No chain provided for measuring.

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 51 of 129

Bklyn Borough Hall 209 Joralemon Street St Ann's & Holy Trinity 157 Montague Street Cong Mt Sinai 250 Cadman Plaza West Cadman Towers 101 Clark Street First Unitarian Ch 119A Pierrepont Street Cadman Plaza North 140 Cadman Plaza West St James Pavilion 240 Jay Street
PS 32 317 Hoyt Street
IS 291 231 Palmetto Street Cooper Ctr 76 Kingsland Ave Hope Gardens 195 Linden Street Vetro Apts Ten Assoc 320 Devoe Street Noll St Apts

(3) Accessible door closed/ Custodian keeps closing door.
(4) Portable ramp not set up properly." (BOE 130-132) (1) Key for BMD missing. (BOE 120)
(1) No door clerk at accessible entrance. (BOE 134)
(l)"BMD missing foot pedal, head phones everything in package voters sign ... BMD light out." (638) (1) Ramp not set up properly. (BOE 74)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 52 of 129

43 Central Ave Swinging 60's Sr Ctr 211 Ainslie Street JASA Senior Center 202 Graham Ave Jennings Hall Sen Ctr 260 Powers Street
IS 50JHS 183 South 3 Street PS 18 101 Maujer Street PS 196 207 Bushwick Ave PS 257 60 Cook Street Bushwick jHylan Ctr 50 Humboldt Street IS 162 1390 Willoughby Ave IS 33 70 Tompkins Ave
Rheingold Gardens 555 Bushwick Ave Evergreen Troutman 78 Troutman Street Penny Yates Apts 63 Central Ave RBSCC Sr Ctr 143 Himrod Street Plaza Senior Center 297 Wilson Ave Ridgewood Sr Ctr 319 Stanhope Street Sister Lucian Sr Housing 415 Bleeker Street

1) Ramp not set up properly. 2) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. "Principal moved polling site to auditorium stage" (BOE 853-854)
(l)No door clerk (BOE 1325)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 53 of 129

Buena Vida

,

Residence

48 Cedar Street

PS 120

18 Beaver Street

PS 23

545 Willoughby Ave

PS 59

211 Throop Ave

PS 256

114 Kosciusko

Street

PS304 280 Hart Street PS274 800 Bushwick Ave PS81 990 De Kalb Ave

PS 26 New 1014 Lafayette Ave
PS 299 88 Woodbine Street

1) "Need more Handicap Missing" "Missing most of the signs"
2) Signs not properly posted at exterior. (BOE 681)
(l)lnsufficient accessibility signage. AD Comment: "Inspectors didn't realize that more signs should have been hung." (BOE 840)
(l)Ramp at accessible entrance not set up properly. No indication it was fixed.
(2) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. "Set up had to be

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 54 of 129

,
PS377 200 Woodbine Street PS 296 JHS 125 Covert Street
PS 151 763 Knickerbocker Ave PS384 242 Cooper Street St Thomas Sr Ctr 725 Evergreen Ave PS 73 241 MacDougal Street
PS 290 135 Schenck Ave PS 108 200 Linwood Street IS 302 332 Linwood Street PS65 700 Jamaica Ave Cypress Hill Sr Center 3208 Fulton Street PS 345 111 Berriman Street IS 171 528 Ridgewood Ave Transit Tech HS 1 Wells Street PS59 211 Throop Ave

reconfigured for smaller available space" (BOE 844845)
(l)Handicap signage missing. (BOE 819)
(l)AD Comment: "The space for the poll workers and the public is too small. The lighting is terrible. It is dark even in the day Iight."(BOE 797)
(l)No door clerk (BOE 835)
(1) Ramp has no hand rails AD Comment re hand

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 55 of 129

, PS 5 New 820 Hancock Street PS 21 180 Chauncey Street PS 137 121 Saratoga Ave
Senior Citizen Center 930 Halsey Street Ocean Hill Comm Ctr 305 MacDougal Street PS 28 1001 Herkimer Street PS 155 1355 Herkimer Street
PS 178 2163 Dean Street
Atlantic Towers 216 Rockaway Ave Wayside Comm Ctr 1630 St Marks Ave PS 332 51 Christopher Ave
WM Maxwell HS 145 Pennsylvania Ave
Mr. Lucky's 533 Liberty Ave PS 292 300 Wyona Street

rails is "none for 5 years." (BOE 847)
(1) Handicap sign improperly placed. (BOE 759)
(1) "Door to wheelchair entrance still locked. Was contacted by custodian." (8:15am) (BOE 770)
(1) No indication it was visited (blank evaluation sheet) (BOE 738) (1) No indication it was visited (blank evaluation sheet) (BOE 747)
(l)No indication it was visited (blank evaluation sheet)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 56 of 129

,

PS298

85 Watkins Street

Hugh Gilroy Sr Ctr 447 Kingsborough 4 Walk PS 335 130 Rochester Ave Albany Center 164 Troy Ave MS394 188 Rochester Ave PS/IS 156 104 Sutter Ave PS327 111 Bristol Street PS 189 1100 East New York Ave Elliot Graham Houses 663 Howard Ave PS 323 210 Chester Street
PS 150 364 Sackman Street

PS 252 JHS 1064 Lenox Road

Sr Citizens Club 430 Dumont Ave

(BOE 750) (l)No indication it was visited (blank evaluation sheet) (BOE 741)
(l)Ramp not set up properly. (BOE 808) (l)No indication it was visited (blank evaluation sheet) (BOE 753) (l)Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. liThe play room floor was still wet from being waxed so all poll equipment and personnel was moved to the auditorium" (BOE 1377) (l)No indication it was visited (blank evaluation sheet) (BOE 732)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 57 of 129

MS 334/ MS 354 1224 Park Place Senior Center 196 Albany Ave PS 243 1580 Dean Street
PS93 31 New York Ave Stuy-Park Houses 77 New York Ave PS 54 New 195 Sandford Street PS 258 JHS 141 Macon Street Risley Dent Apts 1595 Fulton Street PS 262 500 Macon Street
Old Boys High School 832 Marcy Ave PS305 344 Monroe Street PS44 432 Monroe Street
PS308 616 Quincy Street Stuyvesant Grdns II 150 Malcolm X Blvd PS309 794 Monroe Street Goodwin Sr Ctr 55 Goodwin Place

(l)"Missing supply bag for BMD & Handicap supplies" (BOE 731)
(1) Missing supplies for BMD including gloves, headset, paddle. (BOE 725)
(l)BMD does not have headphones. (BOE 662)
1) Signs not properly posted AD Comment: "What outside signage was missing? Everything." 2) No directional arrows to

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 58 of 129

Cornerstone sr Housing 550 Greene Ave
PS 25 787 Lafayette Ave PS 320/ PS 375 46 McKeever Place Clara Barton Voc Hs 901 Classon Ave PS 316 750 Classon Ave PS 11 New 419 Waverly Ave PS22 443 st Marks Ave

alternative accessible entrance.
3) No signs posted at accessible entrance. 4) No BMD. (BOE 684) 1) Sign age not properly posted outside.
2) signage for accessible entrance not properly posted.
3) Directional sign age to the accessible entrance not posted.
4) Alternate entrance signs not filled out.
5) Accessible door closed.
6) No door clerk
(BOE 654-655)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 59 of 129

Brooklyn Museum 200 Eastern Parkway Bklyn Tech HS 2 South Elliott Place Sterling HS 510 Clermont Ave
Edmonds Ctr (IS 113) 300 Adelphi Street PS 56 New 170 Gates Ave Bedford Vlg Sch (PS 3) 50 Jefferson Ave Mt Sinai Church 84 Quincy Street
PS 287 50 Navy Street Willoughby Walk Co-Op 195 Willoughby Ave PS 198 4105 Farragut Road St Augustines Parish Hall 4301A Avenue D St Therese Church 1281 Troy Ave St Augustines Comm Rm 4301 Ave D PS 244 5404 Tilden Ave
PS 219 1060 Clarkson Ave PS 233 9301 Ave B Gorman Hses 1381 Linden Boulevard

(1) "No door clerk assigned per Board of Elections" (BOE 604)
(1) Alternate accessible entrance signs not posted (BOE 503)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 60 of 129

Jimerson Hses

,

1411 Linden

Boulevard

PS242 100-01 Flatlands Ave PS 211 JHS 1001 East 100 Street PS 114 1077 Remsen Ave PS 661S 845 East 96 Street PS272 101-24 Seaview Ave PS 115 1500 East 92 Street PS276 1070 East 83 Street Canarsie HS 1600 Rockaway Parkway
PS 207 Annex Early Childhd Ctr 3920 Flatlands Ave

PS 312 7103 Ave T

PS236 6302 Ave U St. Columba's

(1) No door clerk. AD Comments "It was sad that the board did not send a door clerk" at the accessible entrance" (BOE 476)
(l)No BMD Key (BOE 480)
(1) No signage at accessible entrance. AD Comment "Need handicap sing at alternate entrance." (BOE 347) (1) Accessible entrance signs not posted properly. (2) Directional arrows to accessible entrance not posted. (BOE 463)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 61 of 129

Church 2245 Kimball Street Hall 43 Seba Ave PS207 4011 Fillmore Ave
Vet Post 5601 Ave N PS222 3301 Quentin Road Palm Beach NH 2900 Bragg St Bay Ridge Air Rights 350 65 Street
Bay Ridge Air Rights 260 65 Street PS 102 21172 Street Ft Hamilton HS 8301 Shore Road

(1) Insufficient exterior sign age. AD Comment: "Not enough disability signs for space." No indication problem was rectified.
(2) Ramp not in place and set up properly.
(BOE 442-444)
(1) Interior doors to the poll room not open and clear of obstructions. No indication problem was fixed. (BOE 410)
(1) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic.
AD Comment: "There was a problem setting up the site, the schematic had to be amended.

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 62 of 129

Apt House 7502 Ridge Boulevard

There seems to be a problem with student crowd control. Voters complained they ere unable to pass easily to get to their voting site. Teachers took a while to get students to the side of the cafeteria to make a passage for voters." BOE 417 (1) No door clerk at alternative accessible entrance. (BOE

Manha ttan

Coler Hospital 900 Main Street Goldwater Hospital 1 Main Stret PS 751 113 East 4th Street
The Hermitage 1295 5th Ave

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY

Bard H.5.E.C. - 97 525 East Houston Street

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(3) Interior

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 63 of 129

200 East 5th Street ,
Manhattan North 2036 Amsterdam Ave Los Tres Unidos 22 East 112 Street
HS Fashion Industry 225 West 24th Street PS92 222 West 134 Street PS84 32 West 92nd Street PS 206 508 East 120th Street PS 52 650 Academy Street Washington Sq SE Ap 505 Laguardia Place Bayard Rustin HS 351 West 18th Street The Door 555 Broome Street Lesbian and Gay Ctr 208 West 13th Street Hayden Hall 33 Washington Square West Prospect Tower 45 Tudor City Place

barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(1) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey) (2) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey) (3) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 64 of 129

Survey)

,

(2) entryway

barriers (CIDNY

Survey)

Sirovich Senior

(1) Entry /

Center

pathway barriers

331 East 12th Street (CIDNY survey)

Brachetti Plaza 296 East 4th Street
Compos Community Ctr 611 East 13th Street
UTACPT 125 West 109th Street
Pelham Fritz Rec Center 18 Mt Morris Park West
Windsor Tower 5 Tudor City Place

(2) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

PS 234 (Independence) 292 Greenwich Street
Sutton Place Synagogue 225 East 51st Street Peter Cooper Village 3601 Ave

(3) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) Interior signage barriers (ClDNY Survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 65 of 129

East Harlem Council

,

413 East 120 Street

Tiemann Apts (Columbia Univ) 549 Riverside Drive

(1) Inaccessible Ramp (ClDNY survey) (1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(3) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

YM & YWHA (Nagle Ave) 54 Nagle Ave

(4) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Hunter College 128 East 68th Street
IS 218
4600 Broadway
Barrier Free Living 270 East 2nd Street

(1) Inaccessible Ramp (CIDNY survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

Inwood Towers 11 Fort George Hill

(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Local 802 322 West 48th Street Seward Park I 266 East Broadway Rena Day Care Ctr 639 Edgecombe Ave Seward Park II

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Exterior

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 66 of 129

210 East Broadway

Seward Park III 415 Grand Street East River Housing I 570 Grand Street East River Housing II 575 Grand Street 2nd Canaan Baptist 10 Lenox Ave Tweemill House 145 East 126th Street Inwood Terrace 99 Hillside Ave Asser Levy Recreation Center 501 East 23rd Street Promenade 150 West 225 Street Time Square Hotel 255 West 43rd Street Carver Houses 1481 Madison Ave Dorchester Towers 155 West 68th Street Central Harlem Senior Coalit. 120 West 140th
Street

(1) Entry/pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Interior access barriers

signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 67 of 129

One Lincoln Plaza 20 West 64th Street Rutgers House 200 Madison Street Normandie Court 225 East 95th Street

(CIDNY survey)

Metro Community Church 446 West 36th Street Lenox Hill Senior Center 343 East 70th Street Clinton Community Center 456 West 3ih Street Wadleigh HS 215 West 114th Street Henry Brooks Senior House 304 West 154 Street
Euclid Hall Senior Center 2345 Broadway

(1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY survey)
(2) Exterior Signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(3) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(4) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY (1) Exterior signage barriers

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 68 of 129

(CIDNY

I,

Survey)

Theater for New City 155 1st Ave Coliseum Park Apts 345 West 58th street Mayfair Tower 15 West 72nd Street NYOW- Council Sr Ct 241 West 72nd Street Bridge Apts 1370 St Nicholas Ave CUNY HQ 535 East 80th Street Church of St. Paul & St Andrew 263 West 86th Street

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Max Meltzer Community Ctr 94 East 1st Street J K Onassis HS 120 West 46th St Marseilles Senior Center 230 West 103'd Street
Oberia Dempsey Ctr 127 West 127th St

(1) Entry/ Pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Interior Signage barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(1) Interior signage barriers (ClDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 69 of 129

Northern Man. Nur Hm 116 East 125 St

(2) Entry I
pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)

Ter Card Cookie Ctr 12495 Ave PS 176 4862 Broadway 390 Riverside Drive 390 Riverside Drive Baruch College Campus HS 55 East 25th Street
Tiano Towers 22533 Ave

(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Fash Institute Tech
298 i h Ave
HS Environment Studies 444 West 56th Street Park East Synagogue 164 East 68th St St Anthony's Church 155 Sullivan St PS 217 645 Main Street Dewitt Clinton Ctr 120 East 110 Street
Gen Grant Houses 75 La Salle Street Gen Grant Houses II 1295 Amsterdam Ave Yeshiva U - Cardozo Sch Law

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 70 of 129

55 5th Ave

,

Carlyle Court

25 Union Square

West

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (ClDNY survey)

Andrew Heiskell Library 40 West 20th Street New York Law School 47 Worth Street Liberty High School 250 West 18th Street The 467 Condominium 467 Central Park West Wash Square Village 2 2 Washington Square Village Wash Square Village 3 3 Washington Square Village Renwick Gardens 332 East 29th Street Trump Place 180 Riverside Boulevard Ft. George Center 1525 St Nicholas Ave University Hall 110 East 14th Street West Side High School 140 West 102 Street Kurt & Leah Apts 11 West 102 Street PS89 201 Warren Street

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 71 of 129

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

Master Apartments 310 Riverside Drive Prince George Hotel 14 East 28th Street HS for Leadership 90 Trinity Place Confucius Plaza 33 Bowery Metro Council on Jewish Pov. 351 East 61 Street PS4 500 West 160 Street Nagle House 240 Nagle Ave Residential Building 45 Wall Street The Regatta 21 South End Ave Union Baptist Church 240 West 145th St Red Oak Apartments 135 West 106th St CWA-1180 97 Hudson St River Place 1 650 West 42nd St YMCA (McBurney) 125 West 14th St
School of Co-op Education 321 East 96th St

(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Interior access barriers

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 72 of 129

PS48 4360 Broadway Rutgers Presbyterian 236 West 73rd St Armenian Church 630 2nd Ave St Nicholas Sr Ctr 210 West 131 St The Churchill 300 East 40th St
Samuels Community Center 669 Malcolm X Boulevard Halidon Court 3681 Broadway Seward Park High School 350 Grand Street

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY Survey)

(C1DNY survey)

(2) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(3) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(4) Interior sign age barriers (CIDNY Survey)

CUNY 365 5th Ave
Marymount
Manhattan College 221 East 715t Street

(5) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Holy Trinity

(1) Interior Signage Barriers (CIDNY Survey) (2) No exterior sign age (BOE 3341)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 73 of 129

Cathedral

,

337 East 74th Street

Lighthouse

International 110 East 60th Street

Emanuel Church 2184 8th Ave

Antler Apartments 2079 8th Ave

Boricua College

3755 Broadway

Covenant House 460 West 41st St

Baruch College

Vertical Campus

55 Lexington Ave 250 West 94th St 250 West 94th St

Continental East 353 East 83rd St

Central Syn Pavilion

652 Lexington Ave

Kateri Residence 150 Riverside Drive Columbia Housing 2700 Broadway
Wein Hall 411 West 116th St The Riverside Church 91 Claremont Ave Highbridge Rec CTR 231 Amsterdam Ave Church of Jesus Christ LDS 221 East 87th St Eleanor Roosevelt

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 74 of 129

HS

,

411 East 76th St

Adam Clayton

Powell Jr St. Bldg 163 West 125th St

UPACA 6 Senior

Center

1940 Lexington Ave

Clinton Senior

Center 530 West 55th St

Cathedral HS 350 East 56th St
Stuyvesant Town VI 525 East 14th St Stuyvesant Town VII 3 Stuyvesant Oval PS98 530 West 21ih St Martin Luther King Comm Ctr 2 West 115th St Unity Center 213 West 58th St St. Luke's Episcopal Center 435 West 141 St Alumni Hall 33 3rd Ave MS114 331 East 91st St City Planning 22 Reade St Boys & Girls Republic 888 East 6th St Holy Family Church 315 East 4th St

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Entry / Pathway Barriers (CIDNY survey)
(3) Interior access barriers (ClDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 75 of 129

Park West High

,

School

525 West 50th St

PS276

55 Battery Place

UASBYW

81 New Street

St Stephen of

Hungary Parish 414 East 82nd St

PS 184 M

327 Cherry St

Metro North / River

Crossing 19561st Ave

Cascades High

School

198 Forsyth St

The Palladium 133 East 13th St

Stuyvesant Town II

10 Stuyvesant Oval

PS9 100 West 84th St

1775 Houss 107 East 126th St

Schwab House 11 Riverside Drive
Good Shepherd Church 104 Cooper St

Civil Court 111 Centre St

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY survey)
(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 76 of 129

N Thomas HS 111 East 33rd St
Find Aid for Aged (Hargrave) 111 West 71st St

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)

Triangle House 112 East 128th St PS 169 110 East 88th St
PS41 116 West 11th St Jewish Home & Hosp 120 West 106th St PS 63 121 East 3 Street PS 2 (Meyer London) 122 Henry St PS 36 123 Morningside Drive PS 140 123 Ridge Street Esplanade Gardens 129 West 147th St PS 72 131 East 104th St PS 166 132 West 89th St

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Exterior Signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

PS 144 (M242)

(3) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) Exterior

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 77 of 129

134 West 122nd St
Associated Blind 135 West 23rd St Baruch College Newman Hall 137 East 22nd St YM & YWHA (Lex. Ave) 1395 Lexington Ave Lincoln Towers 140 West End Ave Find Aid for Aged (Hamilton) 141 West 73rd Street PS87 160 West 78th St PS 130 143 Baxter St

signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Interior access barriers (ClDNY) survey

IS 44 100 West 77nd St PS 158 1458 York Ave
PS 133 21215 Ave
Jewish Guild 15 West 65th St Waterside Plaza 15 Waterside Plaza
PS 145 150 West 105th St

(1) Inaccessible Ramp (CIDNY survey)

(2) Exterior Signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)

Lincoln Towers II 150 West End Ave 158 St. Riverside Houses 156-20 Riverside Drive West

(3) Entry / Pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY Survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 78 of 129

Jackie Robinson Complex 1573 Madison Ave City As School 16 Clarkson Street PS 7 160 East 120th St Lincoln Towers III 160 West End Ave PS 108 1615 Madison Ave Ruppert Yorkville Tower Condo 1619 3rd Ave
PS 163 163 West 97th St PS 20 166 Essex St PS 198 1700 3rd Ave
United Methodist Church 1723 Madison Ave

(1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(3) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(4) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey) (2) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 79 of 129

Village View

,

Housing

175 East 4th St

(1) Entry / pathway barriers

(CIDNY

survey)

PS 175 175 West 134th St

(1) Interior access barriers

(CIDNY survey)

PS 153

1750 Amsterdam

Ave

PS57

176 East 115 Street

Stanley Isaacs Ctr 415 East 93rd St

(1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY

survey)

Mott Street Sr Ctr

180 Mott Street

Hamilton Heights

(1) Inaccessible

Terrace

ramp (ClDNY

1833 Amsterdam

Survey)

Ave

(2) Interior access

barriers (CIDNY

survey)

PS 132

185 Wadsworth Ave

Lincoln Towers V

185 West End Ave

PS 171 19 East 103rd St

Dunwell Plaza

(1) exterior

1920 Amsterdam

signage

Ave

barriers

(CIDNY

Survey)

Church Heavenly Rest 2 East 90th St Manhattan House 200 East 66th Street

(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 80 of 129

University Neighborhood 200 Monroe Street
Harlem Renaissance HS 22 East 128th St 1199 Housing 2070 1st Ave

(1) entry /pathway barriers (ClDNY survey)

(1)
Entry/Pathw ay barriers (ClDNY Survey)

(2) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

Lincoln Towers VI 205 West End Ave PS 116 210 East 33,d St

(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Exterior signage barriers (ClDNY Survey)

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(3) Interior Signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

Dewitt Nursing Home 211 East 79th St
Drew Hamilton Houses 220 West 143'd St

(4) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 81 of 129

Riverton Apts

,

2200 Madison Ave

Ruppert House 222 East 93,d St

PS 47 (Sch for

Hearing Impaired)

225 East 23'd St

PS 167 22 East 76th St

Savo'y Park Owner (1) Inaccessible

LLC 2300 5th Ave

ramp (CIDNY survey)

(2) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(3) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(4) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

Riverbend Housing 23015th Ave

(5) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(3) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

PS 38 or 121
232 East 103 St
PS 165 234 West 109th St

(4) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Entry / Pathway

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 82 of 129

PS 117 JHS 240 East 109th St PS 194 244 West 144th St
PS 154 250 West 12ih St

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIONY Survey)

(2) Entry / Pathway barriers (CIONY survey)

Lincoln Square Neighborhood Ctr 250 West 65th St PS 189 2580 Amsterdam Ave Harlem River Houses 231 W 151st St PS 199 270 West 70th St Stuyvesant Town III 2721 Ave PS 33 2819th Ave Stuyvesant Town IV 283 Ave C Polo Ground Sr Ctr 2965 8th Ave PS46 2987 8th Ave Lincoln Guild Housing

(3) Interior access barriers (CIONY survey)

barriers (CIONY Survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (CIONY Survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 83 of 129

303 West 66th St

,

LaGuardia Memor

House 307116th St

PS 173

306 Ft Washington

Ave

PS 290 (Manh New

School) 311 East 82nd St

PS 134

293 East Broadway

PS 102 315 East 113th St

Gen Grant Houses IV

3150 Broadway

Manhattan Inter. HS 317 East 67th St East Midtown Plaza 319 East 24th St PS 58/ Manhattan High School 317 West 52nd St PS 40 320 East 20th St Tweed Court 52 Chambers St IS 70 333 West 17th St PS 187 349 Cabrini Boulevard PS 180 370 West 120th St Dyckman Comm Ctr 3782 10th Ave
Seward Park IV 383 Grand St Manhattan Plaza L.P. 400 West 43rd St

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey) (2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 84 of 129

PS 149

,

41 West 117th St

Columbia University

Houses

410 Riverside Drive

PS 183 419 East 66th St PS 146 421 East 106th St
Yorkville Community School 421 East 88th St
PS 125 425 West 123rd St PS 129 425 West 130th St PS 111 440 West 53rd St PS 188 or 196 442 East Houston Street

(1) Exterior Signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)

John Jay College 4 45 West 59th St PS 6 45 East 81st St Inwood Gardens 45 Fairview Ave East River Housing III 457 FDR Drive PS 53 or 811

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey) (2) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey) (3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 85 of 129

466 West End Ave

,

PS 28

475 West 155th St

East River Housing

IV

477 FDR Drive

St Margaret's House

49 Fulton St

PS3

490 Hudson St

YMCA 5 West 63rd St

PS 192

500 West 138 St

Amalamated

Dwelling

504A Grand Street

PS 43/PS 172 509 West 129th St

Isabella Geriatric 515 Audubon Av PS 143 515 West 182nd St PS 51 520 West 45th St Marble Hill Comm Ctr 5465 Broadway NYU Brittany Hall 55 East 10th St

PS 79 or 811 55 East 120th St

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (ClDNY survey)

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(3) Accessible door locked and no door clerk present (BOE 3348)

(1) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 86 of 129

PS 128

,

560 West 169th St

Hudson Piers #1

596 Riverside Drive

Abraham Lincoln

House 60 East 135th St

Riverview Tower

626 Riverside Drive

LaGuardia High

School

100 Amsterdam Ave

Southbridge Tower

66 Frankfort Street

Stewart Tenant Corp 70 East 10th St

PS 131

100 Hester St

Holy Rood Church 717 West 179th St

PS34 730 East 12th St

PS 75 735 West End Ave Masaryk Towers 77 Columbia Street

(1) Inaccessible Ramp (CIDNY Survey)

PS 1 8 Henry St

(2) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

PS 126 80 Catherine St Morningside Hgts Hous

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 87 of 129

100 Lasalle St 870 Riverside Housing 870 Riverside Drive K'Hal Adath Jeshurun 90 Bennett Ave PS 152 93 Nagle Ave Ft Wash Serv for Eld 99 Ft Washington Ave Int'I Pre-School 330 East 45th St Dunlap Building 1 Wards Island Charles Hill Tower 2050 8th Ave Ralph Hernandez 189 Allen St
Canaan Tower IV 95 Lenox Ave Riverside 3333A Broadway
JHS 118 154 West 93rd St Goddard Riverside 593 Columbus Ave
Village East Towers 170 Avenue C

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(1) Exterior Signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Interior Signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Interior signage barriers (ClDNY survey) (1) Entry / pathway barriers (ClDNY Survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 88 of 129

PS303 108-55 69 Ave
PS 16 41-15104 St Forest Hills HS 67-01110 St PS 196 71-25113 St
PS47 9 Power Road
PS 29 125-1023 Ave Kew Gardens Hills Libra

(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY
(1) No door clerk (BOE 1652)
Second AD team:
site." (1) Improper
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
AD Comment: Not visited. IINo time sorry." (BOE 1660 (1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(3) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(4) Interior Access barriers (ClDNY Su

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 89 of 129

72-33 Vleigh Place CWV Post 870 39-4861 St Lefferts Library 103-34 Lefferts Boulevard
Flushing House Resident Adult 38-20 Bowne St
Florence E Smith Comm Ctr 102-1934 Ave St Clares School 137-25 Brookville Boulevard
St. Sebastions School 39-7658 St St Nicholas of Tolentine 150-75 Goethals Ave Thomas Edison HS 165-6584 Ave

(1) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible poll site layout: "Due to limited space and electricity we had to deviate from the schematic." (BOE 2755)
(1) Accessible door closed. (BOE 1877)

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Exterior sign age barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Exterior signage

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 90 of 129

PS 223 125-20 Sutphin Boulevard Hillcrest HS 160-05 Highland Ave
Young Israel 716 Beach 9 St
Boulevard Gardens 51-4230 Ave
PS 7 80-55 Cornish Ave PS 15

barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(3) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) AD Comment

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 91 of 129

121-15 Lucas St
PS 79 147-27 15 Drive PS 78 48-09 Center Boulevard
IS5 50-40 Jacobus St Allen AME Senior Center 112-04 167 St IS 230 73-10 34th Ave
Christ Lutheran Church 188-1273 Ave PS 222 86-17 3ih Ave PS 58 72-50 Grand Ave
PS 92 99-0134 Ave IS 137 109-15 98th St PS 161 101-33 124 St

"very poor lighting" and no indication this was fixed. (BOE 30)
(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey) (2) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey) (1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) Improperly places access signage: "had to change handicap sign" (BOE 2956)

BMD not private. Placed near only outlet at main entrance (photo)

(1) "Assigned door clerk is absent."

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 92 of 129

,

The Young Womens

Leadership

150-9187 Road

(BOE 2446) (1) Alternate accessible entrance not available, and accessible entrance is not used for all voters (BOE 1444)

Taiwan Center 137-44 Northern Boulevard

(1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(2) Second AD Group: Not compliant with precleared accessible room set up: "Room was overcrowded with school supplies, children, TVs etc... Schematic could not be followed./I (BOE 2767) (1) "No handrail on Ramp./I (BOE 1556)

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(3) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

Saint Albans Cong Church 172-17 Linden Boulevard
Samaritan Village 138-02 Queens Boulevard VFW Post 150 51-11108th St

(4) Interior access barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 93 of 129

Grace Houses

,

155-02 90 Ave

Forest Hills Library

108-1971 Ave

Hillcrest Jewish Center 183-02 Union Turnpike PS 270 233-15 Merrick Boulevard PS 238 17-15 Weirfield St

PS 234 30-1529 St Merrick Park Baptist Church 120-02 Marsden St PS 254 84-40 101 St VFW Post 885 120-19 14 Road
Le Havre Club 168-689 Ave

(1) Not visited "Sorry no time." (BOE 1657)
BMD turning space was less than 5'. Electracal outlet and cord did not allow poll worders to set up BMD for privacy. (only extension cord there used for scanners)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) BOE Form is untouched. Likely

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 94 of 129

, Israel Senior Housing 1925 Seagirt Boulevard Mary's Nativity Church 46-02 Parsons Boulevard 1559 132-55 Ridgedale Street
Immaculate Conception Church 86-45 Edgerton Boulevard

not visited. (BOE 2830)

(1) No indication it was visited by BOE. (BOE 1696)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Interior signage barriers (ClDNY survey)

Services for the Underserved 318 Beach 85 Street Information Tech High School 21-1644 Road

(3) Interior access barriers (ClDNY Survey)

Sherwood Village
"c"
99-3059 Ave PS244 137-20 Franklin Ave
Richmond Hill Library 118-14 Hillside Ave PS305 378 Seneca Ave

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Alternate accessible entrance doors closed. (2) No indication there is a door

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 95 of 129

PS306 95-1689 Ave Elmhurst Campus HS 45-10 94 St
Christ Tabernacle Church 64-36 Myrtle Ave Woodside Library 53-22 Skillman Ave Beach Channel HS 100-00 Beach Channel Drive Ridgewood Presbyterian Church 59-1470 Ave
St Margarets RC Church 66-05 79 Place Arverne Pilgrim Church 74-16 Beach Channel Drive The Vallone Family Snr Res 21-0530 Drive First Baptist Church of Corona 100-10 Astoria Boulevard The Korean Church of Queens 23-3789 St Seaside Library 116-15 Rockaway Beach BLvd PS 113 78-2387 St Grace Lutheran

clerk. (BOE 1951)
(1) BOE Form untouched. No indication it was visited. (BOE 2031)

NoADA privacy booth

Ramp was35' 5" too steep and too long. Ratio was 23/ 8:24.
The BMD had 48" clearance.

(1) Ramp in use

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 96 of 129

School 100-05 Springfield Boulevard Dayton Towers West 102-00 Shore Front Parkway PS34 104-12 Springfield Boulevard St Leo School 104-1949 Ave
IS53 10-45 Nameoke St PS 14 107-01 Otis Ave
PS 108 108-10 109 Ave
IS8 108-35 167 St
PS40 109-20 Union Hall St PS 160 109-59 Inwood St IS 192 JHS 109-89 204 St PS 100 111-11118 St

and not set up properly. (BOE 2449)
(1) Accessible entrance signs not properly posted. (2) Accessible door was closed. (BOE 2016-2017)
(1) Insufficient access sign age. IIHandcap signs short." (BOE 1964) (1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey) (2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey) (3) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 97 of 129

PS 140 166-11116 Ave Ocean Park Apartments 120 Beach 19 St PS 226JHS 121-10 Rockaway Boulevard PS 121 126-10109 Ave PS30 126-10 Bedell St PS 129 128-027 Ave
PS 124 129-15 150 Ave
Brookdale Village Senior Ctr 131 Beach 19th St

(4) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY survey)
BOE Survey: (1) Accessible entrance interior doors to the poll room are not open and clear of obstructions. (BOE 2410)
(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(1) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) BOE says Not compliant with precleared accessible site set up: "Site was not set up according to schematic" (BOE 1506) 1) Exterior Signage barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 98 of 129

PS55 131-1097 Ave
IS 72 133-25 Guy R Brewer Blvd
Bland Community Center 133-36 Roosevelt Ave PS 202 JHS 138-30 Lafayette St
PS 171 14-1429 Ave IS 142

(3) interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Signage improperly posted when AD monitors arrived.

(1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY Survey) (2) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey) (3) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey) (4) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) "not enough lights over the BMD and where the workers work." (BOE 2423)

(1) BOE Says Not visited "We were unable to get to." (BOE 1600) "We did not inspect" (1602)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 99 of 129

142-10 Linden

,

Boulevard

PS 20

(1) Inaccessible (1) Exterior signage

142-30 Barclay Ave ramp (CIDNY

barriers (CIDNY

Survey)

Survey)

Springfield Gardens HS 143-10 Springfield Blvd

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

No indication site was ever visited by BOE (blank AD inspection form) (BOE 1564)
(1) "Missing signs for both inside and outside poll site" (BOE 2928)

PS50 143-26 101 Ave PS 219 144-39 Gravett Road PS 189 JHS 144-80 Barclay Ave
PS 231JHS 145-00 Springfield Boulevard

(2) "No door clerks" (BOE 2931)
(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) No indication site was ever visited by BOE (blank AD inspection form) (BOE 1567) (1) exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

PS 185 JHS 147-2625 Drive

(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) Access signage missing.

(2) Directional signage to the

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 100 of 129

PS 181 148-15230 St PS 193 152-20 11 Ave
PS 22 153-33 Sanford Ave PS 232 153-2383 St August Martin HS 156-10 Baisley Boulevard Aguilar Gardens 156-11 Aguilar Ave
PS 163 159-01 59 Ave Ps 207 159-1588 Street
PS 209 16-10 Utopia Parkway PS 184 163-1521 Road PS 107 167-02 45 Ave

alternative accessible entrance not properly posted. (BOE 2818)
Form is untouched. Likely not visited. (BOE 2827)
"Did not visit" (BOE 1603)
(1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY survey)
(2) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
"Did not visit." (BOE 1609)
Other AD Monitor Comment "Door clerk a no show." (BOE 2106)
(1) At 8:40 pm: alternate accessible entrance door closed. Not easily opened from outside. (BOE 2190)
(2) Signage

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 101 of 129

,
PS 131 170-3584 Ave
PS80 171-05137 Ave PS 32 171-1135 Ave
Ps 173 174-10 67 Ave
PS52 178-37146 Terrace
PS 95 179-0190 Ave PS 37 179-37137 Ave PS 169 18-25212 St
PS 36 187-01 Foch Boulevard PS 178 189-10 Radnor Road PS 118 190-20 109 Road

barriers. AD Comment "No internal signs. Handicap signs not marked as to location." (BOE 2190) AD Comment: "Secured windblown handicap sign." (BOE 2171)

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) At 5:02pm Accessible "door closed - corrected by locking it open" (BOE 2181)

(1) Entry / Pathways barriers (CIDNY Survey) (1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 102 of 129

PS35 191-02 90 Ave PS 26 195-02 69 Ave
PS 101 2 Russell Place
PS 130 200-01 42 Ave PS 162 201-02 53 Ave
PS 134 203-06 109 Ave Blessed Trinity Church 204-25 Rockaway

(3) Interior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(4) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Signage missing at the alternate accessible entrance. Directional signage missing for alternate accessible entrance. (BOE 2630) (1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY Survey) "BMD not working. Called - no repair as yet" (4:20pm) (BOE 1503) Signs for alternate handicap entrance missing. Directional arrows to alternate handicap entrance not posted properly. (BOE 2624)

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

"Did not visit" (BOE 1630).

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 103 of 129

Point Blvd ,
PS 159 205-01 33 Ave
Andrew Jackson HS 207-01116 Ave PS 135 207-1189 Ave Scheuer House of Bayside 208-11 26 Ave
Queensview Inc 21-1534 Ave PS 122 21-21 Ditmars Boulevard Grover Cleveland HS 21-27 Himrod St

No door clerk present. (BOE 2086) 1) Accessible entrance doors closed and locked. "Handicap not guarded - door locked - short inspectors."
2) "No poll worker/ door monitor." (BOE 1496- 1497)
Second AD Team "No door clerk" (BOE 2211)
(1) Exterior sign age barriers (CIDNY survey) (2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
(l)AD Comment"BMD broken, repair called in, service could not fix, would go to warehouse and try to replace. Was not ableto come back." (BOE 1955)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 104 of 129

PS 31 211-45 46 Road

PS 109 JHS 213-10 92 Ave PS41 214-43 35 Ave PS 147 218-01116 Ave PS 188 218-12 Hartland Ave PS84 22-4541 St

(1) Inaccessible Ramp (CIDNY Survey)

(1) No signage for accessible entrance (BOE 3461) (1) No door clerk. (BOE 1820)

(2) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

PS85 23-7031 St M Vanburen HS 230-17 Hillside Ave PS 213 231-02 67 Ave
PS 112 25-0537 Ave
PS 186 252-1272 Ave PS 138 251-11 Weller Ave PS 195 253-50 149 Ave PS 104

(3) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) At 6:40 AD monitors wrote: "Poll site in auditorium, not gym. The whole place was a mess. BMD not set up properly." (BOE 2384)

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 105 of 129

26-01 Mott Ave Lexington School 25-26 75 Street North Shore Towers 272-40 Grand Central Parkway Newcomers HS 28-0141 Ave St. Joseph School 43-19 30th Ave PS 70 30-45 42 Street
PS214 31-15140 Street Bayside HS 32-24 Corporal Kennedy St PS 166 33-0935 Ave South ridge Co-Op #3 33-2491 St IS 145 33-3480 St PS 152 33-5262 St

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
BOE Comment (2) Door clerk is a "No show" (BOE 2555)

(1) Entry / Pathway barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Exterior accessible entrance door closed.
(2) No door clerk. AD Comment: "The doors for the Accessible entrance were CLOSED. We had to tell coordinator to place someone there." (BOE 1851)

Inside ramp slope exceeds ADA guidelines. 3" 1024" (photo)
Due to students in school for primary day privacy booths were not ADA

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 106 of 129

1525 34-65192St PS 143 34-74113 St St Andrews School 35-60 158th St PS 76 36-3610St

MS333 365 Beach 57 Street PS 199 39-2048 Ave

(1) Inaccessible Ramp (CIDNY survey)

PS 150 40-0143 Ave PS98 40-20235St

(1) No door clerk at alternate accessible entrance. (BOE 1936)
(2) exterior signage (CIDNY Survey)
(3) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) AD Monitor Comments "There is no light at the entrance/ exit door. It is very dangerous as darkness set in. The coordinator looked for maintenance and none could be found." (BOE 2575)
(1) Outside signage not posted properly "Front of school problem."
(2) Directional signage to alternative accessible entrance not posted properly. (BOE

compliant (photo)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 107 of 129

Astoria Community Center 4-05 Astoria Boulevard PS94 41-77 Little Neck Parkway PS 12 42-0072 St
PS 105 420 Beach 51 St
Goodwill Apartments 4-2127 Ave Beach 41st St Comm Ctr 426 Beach 40 Street Queen of Angels Parish Center 43-18 Skillman Ave Queens Botanical Gardens 43-50 Main St Rosenthal Senior Center 45-25 Kissena Boulevard PS 125 JHS

2800)
(3) Accessible entrance doors not open. No door clerk present. Comments indicate that school required accessible entrance to be closed if children were in the school yard. (BOE 2801)
(1) Signs for the alternative accessible entrance not posted. (BOE 1840) (1) Improper Signage: "Some signs taken off" No door clerk BOE 1759 -1760
(1) interior access barriers (CIDNY Survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 108 of 129

46-0247 Ave IS 237 46-21 Colden St
Newtown HS 48-01 90 Street IS 61 98-5050 Ave
PS 67 JHS 51-60 Marathon Parkway PS 215 5-35 Briar Place
PS 11 54-25 Skillman Ave PS 13 55-0194 St
PS 102 55-24 Van Horn St PS 177 56-37188 St

(1) Accessible entrance closed and not easy to open from outside. (BOE 2071)
(1) Both BOE forms untouched. No indication it was visited. (BOE 2019 and 2046)
(1) Interior door to poll room closed. Not easy to open from the outside. No interior door clerk. (BOE 1765)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(3) Interior Signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(4) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(1) Signage for alternate accessible entrance and (2) directional arrows to alternate

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 109 of 129

,
Benjamin Cardozo HS 57-00223 St Ocean Village 57-07 Shore Front Parkway
PS 120 58-01136 Street
Francis Lewis HS 58-20 Utopia Parkway

accessible entrance not posted/ missing.
(3)Door initially closed. Door monitor opened. (BOE 2627 - 2628)
BOE Found: (1) Directional arrows not properly posted. fiAt ocean village site, outside signs were taken down by the kids in the complex./I (BOE 1753-1755)
(2) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(3) Entry / pathwyay barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(4) Interior access barriers (CIDNY Survey) (1) Interior accessible door to the poll room closed and/or obstructed. (BOE 2652) (1) At 6:30pm. accessible entrance doors closed and not easily opened from outside.
(2)No door clerk. (BOE 2184)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 110 of 129

Big Six Towers 59-1547 Ave PS 81 599 Cypress Ave
PS 153 60-0260 Lane PS88 60-85 Catalpa Ave
Fairview Apartments 61-20 Grand Central Parkway
PS206 61-2197 Place PS 187/811 Q 61-25 Marathon

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic: 3:30pm "Room was not set up according to lay out but was changed to sufficiently demonstrate 1,2,3 process... Sign age leading to poll site was insufficient and changed." BOE 2875

BMD had a 46 and Yz clearance and the ADA privacy booth 56 and 3/4ths
front slope greater than 30ft with no landing (ask Monica)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 111 of 129

Parkway PS220 62-10 108 St
PS 157 JHS 63-55 102 Street PS 175 64-35102 St
PS46 64-45218 St PS 174 65-10 Dieterie Crescent
PS 93 JHS 66-56 Forest Ave PS 229 67-2551 Road
PS 87 67-5480 St PS 190JHS 68-17 Austin St

(1) Site uses a portable ramp but "there was no ramp installed" (BOE 1891)

(1) Interior doors to poll room obstructed "lunch tables were close to door." (BOE 2865)

(1) interior Access barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(2) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(1) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY Survey)

(1) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic: "Room did not follow exact floor plan." (BOE 2964).

(1) First AD Team: "Room is DARK, Dark." (BOE 1656)
(2) No door clerk.

(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 112 of 129

, PS 128 69-1065 Drive
PS 73 JHS 70-0254 Ave

(BOE 1654)
Second AD Team: [(No door clerk." (BOE 2287)
(1) All sign age missing. No directional arrows.

(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2)No signs posted at accessible entrance. (BOE 1632)

(3)"Gold key for BMD missing. BMD was left unopen until told coord it must be opened." (BOE 1635)

Second AD Team: Improper directional signage comment: [(Hard to find, place is in the basement." (BOE 2896)

(3) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic: [(extremely noisy and crowded. A teacher constantly on the loudspeaker. They only had half the available space." (BOE 2989)

(1) Improper access signage: [(Had to move handicap sign." (BOE 2959)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 113 of 129

,
PS 200 70-10 164 St PS 165 70-35150 St Sand Castle 7-11 Seagirt Ave Immaculate Conception Center 72-00 Douglaston Parkway
Dayton Towers East 7400 7400 Shore Front Parkway PS 154 75-02 162 Street
PS 205 75-25 Bell Boulevard PS 69 77-0237 Ave

(2) "Not a good room for the election due to the sharing of the lunch room with the students. Students were loud, hard to understand what's going on, or where to go even with all the signs hung properly, if weren't for door clerk people may not know where to go./I (BOE 2961) (1) "Bell from BOE did not work./I (BOE 1538)
(1) "One handicapped sign by street handing by a string, blowing in the wind./I (BOE 2147)
(1) AD Comment "Handicap entrance far away from main entrance. Should have more arrows./I (BOE 2177)
(1) Form untouched. No

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 114 of 129

Meadowbrook Apartments 77-15113 St PS49 79-15 Penelope Ave Creedmoor Hospital 79-25 Winchester Boulevard PS 115 80-51261 St Dayton Beach Park 8200 8200 Shore Front Parkway Hammel Comm Center 81-14 Rockaway Beach Blvd PS 64 82-01101 Ave PS 99 82-37 Kew Gardens Road
Forest Park Co-op 83-55 Woodhaven Boulevard
VFW Post 551 84-02 60 Ave
PS 217 JHS 85-144 Street Briarwood Library 85-12 Main St

indication it was visited. (BOE 2025)

(1) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) No hand rails on ramp. "Never had hand rails, was the same ramp / rail the place uses."

(2) Door clerk not present. (BOE 2954)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 115 of 129

PS 191

,

85-15258 St

PS89

85-28 Britton Ave

PS97 85-52 85 Street Dayton Beach Park 8600 8600 Shore Front Parkway
PS54 86-02127 St

PS56 86-10 114 St
PS 18 86-35 235 Court

(1) entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(2) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey)
BOE Form untouched. No indication it was visited. (BOE 2028)

Entrance under heavy construction (photo)

(1) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. "Room needed to be changed due to needs of the school. Lunch room was in original site layout." (BOE 2854) (1) BMD not accessible when AD Monitors arrived: "Rotated BMD and set up properly. Placed 5 feet from waiL" (BOE 2835) (1) "Custodian would not allow entrance" to be opened. Accessible entrance doors were closed (possibly locked)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 116 of 129

,

PS90

86-50109 St

Hilltop Village Co-op 87-15204 Street PS 113 78-23 87 Street PS82 88-02144 St
IS 238 88-15 182 Street Central Library 89-11 Merrick Boulevard

(BOE 1811) (1) Handicap signage initially improper. (BOE 2839)
(2) Exterior accessible entrance doors obstructed by "card board box which was blocking entrance." (BOE 2840)
(3) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. "Room was not set up to fit the layout but was changes as best as possible. Room had vending machines and televisions which affected the way the room could be set up." (BOE 2842)
(1) Directional Signage insufficient: "More directional arrows needed" (BOE 2759)
(1) Accessible entrance door not open. Not easily opened from outside. "Doors are computerized not to open." Interior

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 117 of 129

,
PS 63 90-15 Sutter Ave PS 60 91-0288 Ave
PS 33 91-37222 Street Peninsula Library 92-25 Rockaway Beach Blvd PS 144 93-0269 Ave
PS 139 93-06 63 Drive PS 210JHS 93-11101 Ave
PS 149 93-1134 Ave

"doors are on timer." Problem not corrected. (BOE 1667)
(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(2) Entry / Pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(3) Interior access barriers (CIDNY survey) (1) No door clerk available. (BOE 1814)
(1) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(1) Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible site set up: "Site was not arranged according to plan." BOE 1590 (l)Alternate accessible entrance signs not posted.
(2) Directional arrows to alternate accessible entrance not posted. (BOE 1861)
(3)Accessible door

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 118 of 129

Lefrack City Apartments 96-1057 Ave PS 62 97-25108 Street PS 146 98-01159 Ave

closed. (BOE 1862)
(1) First BOE team: Not compliant with pre-cleared accessible schematic. liThe poll room is not laid out as to the schematic because classes are held in the same room which necessitates an accommodating reformation of equipment."
(2) "Due to room use and congestion, the BMD could not be positioned properly ... as to assure proper access." (BOE 2110)
Second BOE team: "Did not visit" (BOE 1606)
(3) Inaccessible ramp (CIDNY Survey)
(4) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)
(5) Interior Signage barriers (CIDNY Survey)
(6) Interior access barriers (CIDNY

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 119 of 129

I,

Forest Park Library

98-27 Metropolitan

Ave

PS 19

40-32 99 Street

Far Rockaway HS 821 Bay 25 St
PS 91 68-10 Central Ave PS 114 134-09 Cronston Ave

Survey)

(1) No door clerks. (BOE 2008)

(1) Exterior signage barriers (CIDNY survey)

(2) Entry / pathway barriers (CIDNY survey)

(1) Ramp not set up or not properly set up by custodian. (BOE 2682)

(3) Interior Access barriers (CIDNY survey)

First AD Team IIDid not visit." (BOE 1627)
Second AD team: (1) No door clerk present at accessible entrance.
(2) Accessible entrance closed.
AD Comments: IICall made to bd of Efor additional people. School office insisted that the emergency

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 120 of 129

Staten Island

Queensbridge North Comm Ctr 10-2541 Ave Redfern Community Center 15-44 Hassock Street
IS61 445 Castleton Ave

Staten Island Tech HS 485 Clawson St IS 75 455 H not Ave PS37 15 Fairfield St Curtis HS 105 Hamilton Ave New Dorp HS 465 New Dorp Lane
Saint Christophers 136 Midland Ave
Saint Paul's Meth Ch 7557 Am Road IS 2 333 Midland Ave

[accessible] entrance must remain closed until bd of e personal can cover it." (BOE 2091-
(1) Exterior signage missing on front gate (BOE 3431) (2) Portable ramp was not accessible / not set up properly (BOE 343
(1) Signage not properly posted outside BOE (1) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 3467) (2) Portable ramp unsafe BOE 3644)
(1) Signage not properly posted outside, directional

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 121 of 129

PS42 380 Genesee Ave Tennis Club 42 Revere Street IS 72 33 Ferndale Ave Olivet Presby Church 97 Myrtle Ave Central Family Life Center 59 Wright Street Gold Star American Legion 17 Cannon Ave Holy Rosary Par Ctr 85 Jerome Ave The Elks 3250 Richmond Ave PS 20 161 Park Ave
PS56 250 Kramer Ave
PS 5 348 Deisius Street PS 6 555 Page Ave PS 22 1860 Forest Ave Petrides School 715 Ocean Terrace
Christian Pentecostal Church

arrows (BOE 3623) (2) Portable ramp unsafe (BOE 3624)
(1) No signage for accessible entrance (BOE 3443) (2) No door clerk present (BOE 3444)
(1) Ramp not set up properly (BOE 3414) (2) No door clerk at accessible entrance (BOE 3414) (1) Signage: directional signs

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 122 of 129

910 Richmond Road ,
PS58 77 Marsh Ave
Summerfield UMC 104 Harbor Road South Beach Community 155 Norway Ave The Tides at Charleston 15 Tides Lane PS65 98 Grant Street Castleton Hill Moravian Church 1657 Victory Boulevard PS 14 100 Tompkins Ave Castleton Park Apartments 185 St Marks Place Richmond Terrace Comm Ctr 71 Jersey St All Saints Church 2329 Victory Boulevard PS57 140 Palma Drive
PS48 1055 Targee Street PS54 1060 Willowbrook Road Concord HS 109 Rhine Ave

missing (BOE 3434) (2) No door clerk present (BOE 3435) (1) Accessible entrance not open, no door clerk present (BOE 3366)
(1) Exterior signage not posted properly, AD monitor had to post signage (BOE 3362)
(1) Maintenance had to remove interior blockage

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 123 of 129

IS 27 11 Clove Lakes Place Cassidy/Lafayette Senior Center 125 Cassidy Place Ps 69 144 Keating Place
PS 29 1581 Victory Boulevard Cichon Post 100 Innis Street Stapleton Community Center 189 Gordon Street PS 13 191 Vermont Ave IS 51 20 Houston Street PS 36 Annex 200 Jefferson Boulevard Berry Community Center 211 Jefferson St 1524 225 Cleveland Ave
PS 36 255 Ionia Ave Todt Hill Community Center 255 Westwood Ave
Elizabeth Connelly Campus 280 Regis Drive PS 23 30 Natick St PS 32 32 Elverton Ave PS 53 330 Durant Ave
PS 52

(BOE 3554) (1) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 3578)
(1) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 3664) (1) Signage not posted at time of inspection (BOE 3485) (1) No door clerk present (BOE 3354)
(1) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 3620)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 124 of 129

450 Buel Avenue

,

Susan Wagner HS

50 Brielle Ave

Walker Park Club

50 Delafield Place

PS 11 50 Jefferson St PS55 54 Osborne Street PS 31 55 Layton Ave PS 35 60 Foote Ave New Lane Senior center 70 New Lane Staten Island Academy 715 Todt Hill Road
PS 19 780 Post Ave

PS44 80 Maple Parkway PS 16 80 Monroe Ave PS3 80 South Goff Ave PS40 91 Henderson Ave PS50 200 Adelaide Ave

PS 18 220 Broadway IS 7 1270 Huguenot Ave PS8 100 Lindenwood Road

(1) "Ramp too small for wheelchairs" (BOE 3495)
(1) Portable ramp not set up properly "planted walkway" (BOE 3447)
(1) Exterior signage not posted properly (BOE 3374) (2) Unsafe Ramp (BOE 3375, 3594)
(1) Signage not properly posted outside (BOE 3509)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 125 of 129

.
PS 60 55 Merrill Ave PS4 200 Nedra Lane
PS39 71 Sand Lane PS30 200 Wardwell Ave Parkview Apartments 700 Victory Boulevard

(2) Ramp not properly set up, "handrails didn't fit" (BOE 3510)
(1) No signage for accessible entrance (BOE 3500)

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 126 of 129
EXHIBIT B AD MONITOR SAMPLE REPORT

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 127 of 129 Poll Site (Name and A~dre$$)
,
1

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 128 of 129

P()U,Sit~, ..... ,.•. 'i: i'
("~me arid:' '

Agd,re$El) .:

'.'. .

. ";:"':' . .:;••Q:ri;l""'_,,'..::

2

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 119 Filed 10/18/12 Page 129 of 129
EXHIBIT C DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE POLLING PLACE ACCESSIBILITY CHECKLIST

 
 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 123 Filed 10/26/12 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit
organization,

------x

Plaintifß,

NOTICE OF APPEAL 10 civ. 5653 (DAB)

-against-

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JULIE DENT, in her offrcial capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York,

Defendants. ------x
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendants hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, from the Order of the Honorable Deborah A, Batts,
herein dated and entered October 18, 201 1.

This appeal is taken from each and every part of said Order as well as from the
whole thereof.

Dated:

New York, New York October 26,2012

MICHAEL A. CARDOZO Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorney for Defendants
100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 (212) 788-1010

TO: JULIA MIRIAM PINOVER
Disability Rights Advocates 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1515
New York, NY 10151
(212) 644-8644 Email : jpinover@drale gal. org
KEVIN TODD MINTZER Kevin Mintzer, P.C. 1350 Broadway, Suite 1400 New York, NY 10018

By
NARD o
Chief, Appeals Divisron

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 123 Filed 10/26/12 Page 2 of 17
(646) 843-81 80 Emai I : km@mintzerfi rm. com MARIANN MEIER WANG Cuti Hecker Wang LLP. 154 Grand Street
New York, NY 10013
(646) 20s-364t Email : mwang@chwllp. com RONALD ELSBERRY Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor Berkley, CA94704
(sl0) 66s-8644
Email : relsberry@drale gal.org
SID WOLINSKY Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor Berkley, CA94704 (s10) 66s-8s1 1 Email : s¡volinskv@dralegal STUART JOHN SEABORN Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, 4'h Floor Berkley, CA94704 (s1o) 66s-8sl 1 Email : sseaborn@drale gal, ors
CLERK Southern District
2

 
 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 127 Filed 01/28/13 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------- --X

UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

10 Civ. 5653 (DAB) (HBP)

-against-

ORDER

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,

Defendants.
-----------------------------------X 


PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

Paragraph 8 of Judge Batts' October 18, 2012 Order directed defendants to retain an independent third-party expert with expertise in polling-place accessibility to conduct surveys of the polling sites in New York City. Paragraph 8 further provided that if the part s could not agree on the independent third-party expert, I was to designate such an expert after receiving recommendations from the parties.
Unfortunately, the parties have not been able to agree on an expert. Plaintiff has submitted the names of three con­ sulting firms, ranked in order of preference; defendant has submitted the name of one consulting firm. Both sides have submitted background materials in support of their respective

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 127 Filed 01/28/13 Page 2 of 4
candidates with information about the firms, their expertise, experience and the services each would provide if selected.
All of the candidate firms appear well qualified to perform the tasks identified by Judge Batts. All have personnel with the training and experience to rform accessibility stud­ ies, to report on whether the a polling site can be made accessi­ ble and, if so, to make recommendations concerning the necessary remedial steps. In addition, the prices quoted by plaintif first choice and defendants' choice are not materially different.
Nevertheless, after considering the parties' submis­ sions, I conclude that Evan Terry Associates, P.C. ("ETA"), plaintiff's first choice, is best suited to perform the tasks identified by Judge Batts. Its staff has performed simi surveys in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. The facilities of which ETA has performed surveys include the United States Capitol, the House and Senate Office Buildings, the United States Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the Duane Reade drug store chain, the old Yankee Stadium, the Shubert Theaters and the Metropolitan Opera House. ETA's staff has published numerous books and conducted numerous seminars concerning ADA compliance issues. ETA's clients have included the United States Department of Justice, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,
2

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 127 Filed 01/28/13 Page 3 of 4
CVS Caremark, Kaiser Permanente and Sutter Health. ETA's firm biography reports that ETA has conducted surveys of businesses with multiple branches such as drug store, chains, banks and health care chains; this experience is particularly appropriate to the survey work identified by Judge Batts which consists of visiting and surveying multiple polling places throughout New York City.
Although I am confident that 1 the candidate rms could complete the assignment, I conclude that ETA is the most qualified, and, pursuant to paragraph 8 of Judge Batts' October 18, 2012 Order, I designate it as the Third Party Expert. Dated: New York, New York
January 28, 2013 SO ORDERED

Copies transmitted to:
Julia M. Pinover, Esq. Disability Rights Advocates Suite 1515 745 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10151

HENRY PITMAN United States Magistrate Judge

3 


Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 127 Filed 01/28/13 Page 4 of 4
Christine Hsiao-Ting Chuang, Esq. 
 Ronald Elsberry, Esq. 
 Sid Wolinsky, Esq. 
 Stuart J. Seaborn, Esq. 
 Disability Rights Advocates 
 2001 Center Street 
 Berkeley, California 94704 
 Kevin T. Mintzer, Esq. 
 Suite 1400 
 1350 Broadway 
 New York, New York 10018 
 Mariann M. Wang, Esq. 
 Cuti Hecker Wang LLP 
 154 Grand Street 
 New York, New York 10013 
 Stephen Kitzinger, Esq. 
 Assistant Corporation Couns 
 City New York 
 100 Church Street 
 New York, New York 10007 

4

 
 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a x nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,

Plaintiffs,
-against-
BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JULIE DENT, in her official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York,

Case no. lO-cv-5653 (DAB)
{)~~3~ll
1!!R()PtmEsr'MODIFIED ORDER

Defendants. x

MODIFIED ORDER On March 16, 2012, Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled In Action (collectively, "Plaintiffs"} and Defendants Board of Elections in the City of New York ("BOE"} and Julie Dent, in her official capacity as President of the BOE (collectively, "Defendants"}, filed Motions for Summary Judgment in the above-referenced matter. On August 8, 2012, this Court entered a Memorandum and Order (the "August 8th Order"}, which granted Plaintiffs' Motion and denied Defendants' Motion. Since its issuance of the August 8th Order, the Court has held three hearings focused solely on the question of appropriate remedy. By letter dated October 11, 2012, the Department of Justice, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 517, appeared and submitted a proposed

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 2 of 14
Order for a remedial plan. Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, "p arties"), and the Department of Justice, were instructed to meet and confer to develop and propose a j oint plan for the Court to consider before it entered a remedial Order in this matter. Having considered the parties' proposals and conce rns , the Court he reby ORDERS that:
1. Accessible polling sites are and shall be the cornerstone of the voting accessibility program of the BOE. The BOE has an obligation to provide an accessible voting program under federal law.
2. The BOE shall maintain in operable working condition, on the day of any election, those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be provided by the BOE to make polling sites temporarily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.
3. Beginning with the November 6, 2012 General Election, and in all primary, special, and general elections held thereafter, the BOE shall designate one of the BOE' s existing poll-site workers at every polling site in New York City as the on-site Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator on Election Day ("OnSite Accessibility Coordinator"). The BOE shall contract with the Center for the Independence of the Disabled, New York ("CIDNY"), the downstate regional Protection and Advocacy for
2

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 3 of 14
Voter Access office, to train each of the On-Site Accessibility Coordinators on poll-site accessibility prior to the November 6, 2012 General Election. After the November 6, 2012 General Election, the BOE may contract with a third-party, mutually agreed upon by the parties, to develop training for each of the On-Site Accessibility Coordinators on poll-site accessibility. The BOE shall contract with CIDNY to develop an Election Day poll-site accessibility checklist to be used by On-Site Accessibility Coordinators on the date of any election.
(a) The BOE shall compensate CIDNY for the services i t provides pursuant to this Order at a rate determined by this Court.
(b) This paragraph does not require the BOE to hire any additional staff at its poll sites. 4. The BOE' s On-Site Accessibility Coordinators shall document any accessibility complaints received on the date of any election. Plaintiffs shall provide forms for this documentation to the BOE. The BOE shall submit a report detailing accessibili ty complaints received by On-Site Accessibility Coordinators to Plaintiffs wi thin 45 days of any primary, special, or general election held during the term of this Order, wi th the exception of Primary Elections occurring in September. For Primary Elections occurring in September, the BOE shall
3

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 4 of 14
provide reports detailing accessibility complaints for a sample 35 randomly selected poll-sites within 45 days of such primary elections. The parties shall communicate in writing regarding which sites shall be sampled at least 30 days prior to each September Primary Election.
5. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pi tman, who is designated by this Court to oversee the implementation of this Order, including inter alia any and all disputes among the parties concerning payments, selection of Third Party Experts, and the poll-site surveys to be conducted pursuant to this Order.
6. Attachment A to this Order contains a list of poll-sites, including those with accessibility barriers, which the parties identified in advance of the hearing on remedies held on September 10, 2012. Following each Election Day, parties shall meet and confer, and make a j oint submission to Judge Pitman of an updated version of Attachment A, which shall incorporate:
(a) any additional barriers at the BOE' spoIl sites; (b) the removal of any poll-sites identified from the BOE's list of active poll-sites; and (c) the removal of any poll-site barriers from the list where the parties agree that such barriers no longer exist at the identified poll-site.
4

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 5 of 14
The BOE shall ensure that the sites identified in the most updated version of Attachment A receive appropriate and sufficient temporary access features (such as portable ramps and sufficient signage) on the day of the election. For the November 6, 2012 General Election, the BOE shall, to the extent possible, ensure that the sites identified in Attachment A receive appropriate and sufficient temporary access features (such as portable ramps and sufficient signage) on that date.
7. Beginning with the November 6, 2012 General Election, and in all primary, special, and general elections held thereafter and during the term of this Order, Assembly District ("AD" ) Moni tors employed by the BOE shall v i s i t each polling s i t e twice on the date of any such election to assess the accessibility of the poll site. The first visit to each site shall occur at least four hours prior to the second, and the AD Monitors shall, during said visits, take immediate steps to assist on-site poll workers to remedy any access barriers at the site, including, but not limited to, missing ramps, missing signage, and paths to voting machines that cannot accommodate persons with disabilities due to insufficient width.
(a) The AD Monitors shall complete CIDNY's poll-site accessibility training prior to November 6, 2012.
(b) Prior to each election held during the term of
5

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 6 of 14
this Order, the BOE shall communicate in writing to each AD Monitor visiting a polling site at which the BOE agreed to or was required by Court Order to implement a temporary modification, pursuant to Paragraph 15 of this Order. The communication shall identify the temporary modifications that are necessary to implement at that site.
(c) The AD Monitors shall document the results of their visits. The report shall state whether each temporary modification to which the BOE agreed pursuant to Paragraph 15, or was ordered to implement, was in fact implemented when the AD Monitors arrived at the polling site. If one or more of the temporary modifications was not implemented when the AD Monitors arrived at the polling site, the AD Monitors' report shall also state:
(1) the time the AD Monitor informed an on-site poll worker of the failure to implement the temporary modification;
(2) the name of the on-site poll worker with whom the AD Monitors spoke regarding the failure to implement the temporary modification; and
(3) whether the temporary modification was implemented before the AD Monitors left the polling site.
6

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 7 of 14
(d) Within 45 days of the date of any election, Defendants shall submit a report to Plaintiffs detailing:
(1) all access barriers found by the AD Monitors; and
(2) any temporary modifications that the BOE failed to implement. A sample form for this report is attached to this Order as Attachment B. 8. Defendants shall contract with, and provide reasonable compensation to, an independent third-party with expertise in voting accessibility ("Third Party Expert") to conduct poll-site accessibili ty surveys of the polling sites in New York City. The parties shall attempt to corne to an agreement regarding the selection of the Third Party Expert. I f the Parties cannot agree on the Third Party Expert by January 10, 2013, however, the parties shall, in writing, brief Judge Pitman as to their respective recommendations for the Third Party Expert. Judge Pi tman shall designate the Third Party Expert. 9. The BOE will cooperate fully with the Third Party Expert as it conducts its survey work including, but not limited to, providing the Third Party Expert with assistance in accessing polling sites on non-election days and providing access to
7

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 8 of 14
election district maps and other reasonably requested information, including the identification of the voting area at each polling site, in a timely manner.
10. Beginning January 2013, the Third Party Expert will conduct surveys of as many polling sites as practicable, with a goal of no fewer than 120 polling sites every two months (the "Survey Period").
11. The Third Party Expert shall utilize the requirements set forth in the survey instrument, attached hereto as Attachment C, to evaluate polling sites pursuant to Paragraph 10 of this Order. In doing so, the Third Party Expert may utilize an electronic version of the survey instrument or an electronic database that captures the requirements set forth in the survey instrument. In addition, the Third Party Expert will include photographs of relevant features at each polling site to accompany the survey instrument.
12. Within 20 days of the end of each Survey Period, the Third Party Expert shall provide to the BOE and the Plaintiffs, copies of all assessments completed and photographs compiled during the previous Survey Period.
13. Within 30 days of the end of each Survey Period, the Third Party Expert will report to Judge Pitman, the BOE, and the
Plaintiffs, in writing, with the results of the surveys completed 8

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 9 of 14
pursuant to Paragraph 10 of this Order and its recommendations regarding polling place locations that are not accessible (the "Report" ) Each Report shall state:
(a) Whether each surveyed polling site can reasonably be modified temporarily to be accessible on the day of any election after November 6, 2012, and, if so,
(i) what temporary modifications can be made, and (ii) how such modifications can be accomplished; (b) If the polling site is located in a publicly-owned
building, whether it is reasonable to modify permanently any
accessible polling site to make it accessible and how such modifications would be made; and
(c) Whether a temporary sign should be posted to direct voters with disabilities to an alternate accessible entrance, and where the sign should be posted. 14. If the Report concludes that a surveyed polling site cannot reasonably be modified temporarily, the BOE shall report to the Plaintiff and the Third Party Expert, wi thin 60 days of receipt of the Report, in writing, whether that polling site can be relocated to a building that is accessible or can reasonably be made temporarily accessible, and the specific location (s) it recommends as the relocation site. In determining whether a polling site can reasonably be relocated, the BOE shall consider the following criteria:
9

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 10 of 14
(a) Whether the proposed relocation site is in the same election division that the polling site serves or an election division adj acent to the election division that the polling site serves;
(b) Whether there are any significant dangers or obstacles that would preclude pedestrians from traveling safely to the proposed location, such as a park or maj or road or highway that cannot be safely traversed;
(c) Whether the building in which the polling site is proposed to be relocated is of sufficient size to accommodate a polling site or, if a polling site is already located there, whether the building is of sufficient size to accommodate an additional polling site; and
(d) Whether the location is unable to accommodate a polling site for mechanical or other physical or operational reasons. If the BOE recommends a relocation site that is not accessible but can reasonably be made temporarily accessible, the BOE also will identify what temporary modifications can be made and how such modifications can be made. 15. As set forth under subsections (a) and (b) of this Paragraph, the BOE will implement recommendations made by the Third Party Expert Pursuant to Paragraph 13 of this Order, subj ect to its ability to challenge the recommendation under
10

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 11 of 14
subsection (c) of this Paragraph. (a) Other than the when excepted pursuant to subsection
(c) of this Paragraph, during the term of this Order, the BOE shall implement all recommendations of the Third Party Expert to which it has agreed, beginning in the elections immediately subsequent to their agreement, unless
(i) the BOE's agreement was made within 45 days before the next election; and
(ii) the BOE determines that it is in its best interest to implement the recommendation In the next subsequent election, in which case the recommendation will be implemented in the next subsequent election. (b) During the term of this Order, other than when excepted pursuant to subsection (c) of this Paragraph, the BOE will, in the next election subsequent to any additional Order issued by the Judge Pitman, implement said Orders, unless the Orders are appealed to this Court. (c) If the BOE concludes that
(i) it cannot reasonably implement a recommendation;
(ii) relocation of the polling site to an al ternate location is a more appropriate response to the recommendation; or
(iii) a polling site cannot be relocated; 11

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 12 of 14
then the BOE shall notify the Third Party Expert and the Plaintiffs and meet and confer with the Third Party Expert and the Plaintiffs (or their representatives). If the BOE and the Third Party Expert or the Plaintiffs are unable to agree as to the implementation of a recommendation, the BOE may petition the Judge Pitman for relief from the applicable recommendation pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to appeal. The BOE does not have to implement any recommendation from which it is seeking relief unless and until the Judge Pitman, or if appealed, a Final Order on Appeal, orders the BOE to implement the recommendation. 16. Attached to this Order is a survey instrument, Attachment C, which the BOE shall use to assess the accessibility of all future proposed polling site locations. The BOE shall continue to make accessibility a maj or criterion when it selects new locations for polling sites. The BOE shall continue its policy and practice of reviewing each newly proposed polling site location to determine whether it is accessible to persons with disabili ties or could be made temporarily accessible before selecting a location as a polling site. 17. After the November 6, 2012 General Election, the Third Party Expert shall train employees of the BOE on using the survey
12

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 13 of 14
instrument and determining whether a polling site location is or can be made accessible. No later than 60 days before beginning the training, the Third Party Expert shall provide the BOE with a copy of the training materials that the Third Party Expert intends to use, and shall provide the BOE with a list of equipment and/or supplies the BOE inspectors will need to assess accurately the accessibility of the BOE' s polling sites. During the term of this Order, the BOE may request additional training on a reasonable basis.
18. If at any time one of the parties desires to petition this Court to modify this Order, the party will promptly notify the other parties in writing, setting forth the facts and circumstances thought to justify modification, as well as the substance of the proposed modification. In such an instance, an in-person meeting between the parties shall be held prior to the petition to attempt resolution without Court intervention. Parties receiving notice of another party's intent to petition for modification of this Order shall notify the requesting party in a timely manner as to whether it will consent to the proposed modification.
19. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction over compliance with this Order through December 31, 2016. 30 days before the expiration of this period, the parties shall submit briefing to
13

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 130 Filed 05/13/13 Page 14 of 14
the Court on the BOE' s compliance with the Order, and make recommendations as to whether the Court should retain jurisdiction over the matter. SO ORDERED.
Dated: ~ J3 ,2013
New York, N~ York THE HONORABLE DEBORAH A. BATTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14

 
 Case:11:21-04-4cv1-2056D53o-cDuAmBe-nHtB: 1P41D-1ocumPaegnet :1138 F0i6le/0d90/260/0194/14 1P2a4g2e8415of 441

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

N.Y.S.D. Case # 10-cv-5653(DAB)

MANDATE SECOND CIRCUIT ______________________________________________ At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the

14th day of May, two thousand and fourteen.

USDC SDNY

Before:

José A. Cabranes,

DOCUMENT

Peter W. Hall,

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

Denny Chin,

DOC #: _________________

Circuit Judges.

DATE FILED: J_u_n_e__0_9,_2_0_1_4____

_______________________________________________________

Disabled In Action, a nonprofit organization, United Spinal Association, a nonprofit organization,

Plaintiffs - Appellees, v.

JUDGMENT Docket No. 12-4412

Board of Elections in the City of New York, Frederic M. Umane, in his official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York,

Defendants - Appellants. _______________________________________________________

The appeal in the above captioned case from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York was argued on the district court record and the parties' briefs. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the order of the district court is AFFIRMED in accordance with the opinion of this court.

For The Court:
Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

MANDATE ISSUED ON 06/09/2014

1 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 1138 0F6il/e0d9/0260/1049/14 12P4a2g8e425 of 4443

12-4412-cv Disabled in Action, et al. v. Bd. of Elections in the City of New York, et al.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

August Term 2013

(Argued: December 12, 2013

Decided: May 14, 2014)

Docket No. 12-4412-cv

DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization, UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, FREDERIC M. UMANE, in his official capacity as President of the Board of
Elections in the City of New York,
Defendants-Appellants.

Before:

CABRANES, HALL, and CHIN, Circuit Judges.

2 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 1238 0F6il/e0d9/0260/1049/14 12P4a2g8e435 of 4443
Appeal from a final order of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Batts, J.), requiring defendants-appellants to
comply with a comprehensive remedial plan to address barriers to access for
people with disabilities at New York City polling sites. The order was entered
after the district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs-appellees, finding
that defendants-appellants had violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
AFFIRMED.
STUART SEABORN, Disability Rights Advocates, Berkeley, CA (Sid Wolinsky and Christine Chuang, Disability Rights Advocates, Berkeley, CA, Julia Miriam Pinover, Disability Rights Advocates, New York, NY, Kevin Mintzer, The Law Office of Kevin Mintzer, P.C., New York, NY, and Mariann Meier Wang, Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
DRAKE A. COLLEY (Edward F.X. Hart, on the brief), for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellants.
ALICIA M. SIMMONS, Assistant U.S. Attorney (Benjamin H. Torrance, Assistant U.S. Attorney, on the brief), for Preet Bharara, United States Attorney of the Southern District of New York, New York, NY,
- 2 3 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 1338 0F6il/e0d9/0260/1049/14 12P4a2g8e445 of 4443
and Jocelyn Samuels, Acting Assistant Attorney General (Dennis J. Dimsey and Sasha SambergChampion, Attorneys), Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, for Amicus Curiae United States of America.
CHIN, Circuit Judge: The Board of Elections in the City of New York (the "BOE") is
responsible for identifying and designating poll sites that are accessible to voters with disabilities in New York City. In this case, plaintiffs-appellees, non-profit organizations representing people with mobility or vision disabilities (collectively "plaintiffs"), allege that BOE is failing to provide them with meaningful access to its voting program, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the "Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
The district court (Batts, J.) concluded that pervasive and recurring barriers to access exist at poll sites operated by BOE and granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. After giving the parties the opportunity to develop and propose a joint plan for relief, the district court ordered a remedial plan to address BOE's violations of federal law. We conclude that the district court properly granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Moreover, we
- 3 4 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 1438 0F6il/e0d9/0260/1049/14 12P4a2g8e45 of 4443
find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the remedial plan. Accordingly, we affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. The Facts
As the district court noted, the facts set forth below are not in substantial dispute. See United Spinal Ass'n v. Bd. of Elections in the City of New York, 882 F. Supp. 2d 615, 617 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).1
1. New York Voting Laws BOE is responsible for identifying and designating polling places
that are accessible to voters with disabilities, and ensuring compliance with accessibility standards. N.Y. Elec. Law § 4-104(1). Under New York law, an individual with a disability may vote (1) in person on election day at her assigned polling place; (2) in person on election day at an alternative, accessible polling place, provided that the candidates and ballot proposals on the ballot at the alternative location are the same as those on the ballot at the assigned polling

1

At oral argument, BOE confirmed that the facts are undisputed. Oral

Argument at 2:54:27-2:55:17. Rather, defendants contest the inferences and conclusions

the district court drew from these facts.

- 4 5 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 1538 0F6il/e0d9/0260/1049/14 12P4a2g8e465 of 4443
place; or (3) by absentee ballot if she is unable to appear at the assigned polling place. Id. §§ 5-601, 8-400(1)(b).
To vote at an alternative, accessible polling location, an individual must submit a written application to transfer her registration at least fourteen days before the election. Id. § 5-601(2). Ten days before the election, BOE must provide the voter with information as to the location of the election district to which her records have been transferred, or inform the voter that there is no alternative, accessible polling place. Id. § 5-601(7). If there is no alternative polling place available, BOE must treat the voter's application as an application for an absentee ballot for the election. Id. § 5-601(8).
To apply for an absentee ballot, a voter must submit an application by mail at least seven days or by hand at least one day before the election, stating, in part, that she is "unable to appear at a polling place because of . . . physical disability." Id. §§ 8-400(2)(c), 8-400(3)(c)(ii). Such an individual may also apply for the "right to receive an absentee ballot for each election thereafter . . . without further application." Id. § 8-400(4).
- 5 6 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 1638 0F6il/e0d9/0260/1049/14 12P4a2g8e475 of 4443
2. BOE's Designation and Operation of Poll Sites BOE does not own any facilities that serve as poll sites. Instead, it
designates as poll sites facilities owned either by a private entity or by another governmental agency. Prior to election days, at least 30% of the locations in New York City that BOE designates as poll sites are structurally inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. BOE is currently in the process of surveying each poll site to determine its accessibility.
In an effort to address barriers to access on election days, BOE attempts to use temporary measures to make these locations accessible. Moreover, BOE includes a section in its Poll Worker's Manual to inform poll workers about accessibility issues. BOE also employs teams of Assembly District ("AD") monitors, trained in disability issues and charged with ensuring that poll sites are operated in accordance with all applicable standards, to visit poll sites at least twice on election days.
3. Barriers to Access at New York City Polling Places Since 2003, the Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York
("CIDNY"), an entity designated by the State of New York to train and certify poll site surveyors in accessibility issues, has conducted inspections of a random
- 6 7 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 1738 0F6il/e0d9/0260/1049/14 12P4a2g8e485 of 4443

sample of BOE's poll sites on election days. CIDNY trains its staff and volunteer surveyors to use a checklist consistent with the United States Department of Justice's ADA Checklist for Polling Places. According to survey data from election days in 2008 to 2011, 80% or more of the polling sites surveyed contained at least one physical barrier to access.2 These barriers include those relating to ramps, entryways, pathways, interior spaces at poll sites, and missing or misplaced signage.
The deposition testimony of surveyors and individuals with disabilities confirms that barriers to access exist on election days that make it difficult for disabled voters to cast their ballots in person. For example, in 2010 Rima McCoy, the Voting Rights Director for CIDNY from July 2008 to December 2011, inspected, among others sites, the poll site located at P.S. 13 in Queens. When she arrived at P.S. 13 there was no sign at the inaccessible main entrance to direct disabled voters to the accessible entrance. After she located the accessible entrance on her own, she found that the door was locked and the bell did not

2

Specifically, in 2008, 54 of the 65 poll sites surveyed, or 83%, contained at

least one barrier to access; in 2009, 43 of the 51 polling sites surveyed, or 84%, contained

at least one barrier to access; in 2010, 42 of the 53 inspected sites, or 79%, contained at

least one barrier to access; and 46 of the 55 polling places inspected in 2011, or 84%,

contained at least one barrier to access.

- 7 8 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 1838 0F6il/e0d9/0260/1049/14 12P4a2g8e495 of 4443
work. Once inside, McCoy observed that there was no signage from the accessible entrance to direct voters to the voting area or to inform them on which floor the voting area was located. Further, the placement of the ADA privacy booth in the voting area made the booth inaccessible to wheelchair users.
Denise McQuade, a registered voter who uses a wheelchair for mobility, encountered barriers to access during the September 2010 election at P.S. 102 in Bay Ridge. The ramp at P.S. 102 was "extremely steep -- like a ski slope." J.A. 728. McQuade was "very frightened to use [it] because there was no landing at the top of the ramp," and this made it impossible for her to exit the building safely without assistance. Id. Although she was able to vote with the help of her husband and a police officer, she was afraid to go back to vote in subsequent elections. Accordingly, she used an absentee ballot in the November 2011 election.
Voters with vision impairments also encountered barriers to access. For example, Paula Wolff, an individual who is legally blind, was unable to privately cast her vote in the November 2011 election. Some 90% of residents at her polling place, Selis Manor, are blind. Though Selis Manor is required to have two Ballot Marking Device ("BMD") machines for voters with disabilities, there
- 8 9 of 44

Case:11:21-04-4cv1-2056D53o-cDuAmBe-nHtB: 1P41D-2ocumPaegnet :1938 F0i6le/0d90/260/0194/14 1P2a4g2e84150 of 443
was only one BMD machine during the November 2011 election and it was not working. Despite calls by poll workers to BOE regarding the malfunctioning machine, the machine was never repaired. Accordingly, visually disabled voters needed poll workers to read and mark their ballots for them.
As its own information reflects, many of BOE's poll sites are inaccessible on election days. BOE acknowledges that at least two of its poll sites are fully inaccessible. Further, its call incident logs and reports from election days indicate that other sites were missing ramps and other accessibility equipment. Despite being notified of accessibility issues, BOE consistently did not respond to or remedy the problems of which it was made aware. Although BOE plans for AD monitors to visit all poll sites, its own documentation shows that many AD monitors did not visit their planned sites on election days.
BOE does not have an ADA coordinator or someone designated as primarily responsible for ensuring compliance with the ADA, as required by federal regulations. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a). Nor does BOE have an accessibility transition plan for the poll sites that it designates. See id. § 35.150.
- 9 10 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 11308 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e81415 of 4443
B. Proceedings Below On July 26, 2010, plaintiffs filed a complaint against BOE alleging
that it discriminated against individuals with disabilities in violation of the ADA and Section 504 by operating polling places with barriers to access. The district court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. After the parties completed discovery, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment seeking declaratory relief.
In a memorandum and order dated August 8, 2012, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. United Spinal Ass'n, 882 F. Supp. 2d at 627. As an initial matter, the district court rejected BOE's argument that plaintiffs' claims fail because there was no evidence that any voter had been deprived of the right to participate in an election. Id. at 623. The district court found that there was "no genuine dispute of material fact as to the existence of pervasive and recurring barriers to accessibility on election days at poll sites designated by the BOE." Id. at 624. Moreover, the district court rejected BOE's argument that it accommodates voters with disabilities by (1) offering those assigned to inaccessible poll sites an opportunity to transfer their registration

- 10 -

11 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 11318 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e81425 of 4443
and (2) addressing barriers as they are made aware of them on election days. Id. at 627.
Shortly after granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, the district court ordered the parties to confer and develop potential remedies. Accordingly, plaintiffs met with BOE and proposed a framework for remedial relief. BOE did not respond with feedback or propose a plan of its own. At the hearing on August 27, 2012, BOE offered information about how it was trying to address accessibility issues for the upcoming elections in September and November 2012, including assigning poll site coordinators to each poll site, attempting to survey every poll site in New York City, and providing additional signage at poll sites. BOE also expressed concerns about its ability to hire additional staff and CIDNY's potential oversight in any remedial plan. The district court again ordered parties to discuss a possible remedial plan and scheduled another hearing.
At the hearing on September 10, 2012, BOE described changes that it planned to make for the upcoming primary election that week. Specifically, BOE planned to provide poll site coordinators with special instructions regarding poll site accessibility, a survey instrument to assess whether the site was ADA

- 11 -

12 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 11328 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e81435 of 4443
compliant throughout the day, and an ADA journal to record their observations. Further, each poll site would receive a five-foot chain to measure areas and ensure that wheelchairs users had adequate space. Teams of AD monitors would also visit poll sites throughout the day. Plaintiffs opined that the proposed changes were not sufficient to remedy the systemic violations. After listening to and reviewing BOE's proposals, the district court determined that it wanted to assess their effectiveness at a sample of poll sites in the upcoming September 2012 Primary Election (the "September 2012 Election"). Accordingly, the district court asked the parties to confer and generate a list of 37 to 40 poll sites that had had an accessibility problem for more than one year. The district court requested that the accessibility data from these poll sites be available by the next conference.
On October 11, 2012, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") appeared, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517,3 and submitted a proposed order for a remedial plan,

3

28 U.S.C. § 517 provides that "any officer of the Department of Justice,

may be sent by the Attorney General to any State or district in the United States to

attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United

States, . . . or to attend to any other interest of the United States."

- 12 -

13 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 11338 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e81445 of 4443
modeled after a settlement agreement the DOJ had entered into with the City of Philadelphia (the "DOJ proposed order").
At a third hearing on October 15, 2012, BOE discussed the data related to accessibility issues that it collected during the September 2012 Election. Out of the 35 poll sites the parties agreed to monitor, BOE reported that 22 of them had at least one barrier to access. BOE was unable to address many of the problems that were reported throughout the day, and it was unable to determine whether the problems had been rectified from the data that it collected.
A representative of DOJ described the DOJ proposed order. After hearing BOE's concerns, the district court stated its intent to sign an order similar to the DOJ proposed order. It gave BOE the opportunity to confer with DOJ and plaintiffs to suggest changes to the DOJ proposed order, and asked the parties to submit a new proposed remedial order based on BOE's requests. The record does not indicate that another plan was submitted.
In an order dated October 18, 2012 (the "remedial order"), the district court issued a remedial plan. The district court referred oversight of the implementation of the remedial order to Magistrate Judge Pitman.

- 13 -

14 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 11348 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e8145 of 4443
The remedial order, based on the DOJ proposed order, provides for the following: BOE is to designate one of its existing poll site workers at every poll site as the on-site Americans with Disabilities Act Coordinator, to be trained by CIDNY for the November 6, 2012 General Election and a third-party mutually agreed upon by the parties for elections thereafter. BOE is to contract with CIDNY to develop a poll-site accessibility checklist. The on-site accessibility coordinators shall use the checklist to document any accessibility complaints received on election days and, based on this data, BOE is to submit a report 45 days after an election day.
Further, the remedial order mandates that AD monitors visit each polling site twice on election days to assess the accessibility of the poll site, take steps to assist on-site poll workers to remedy any access barriers at the site, and document the results.
To improve poll site accessibility over the long term, the remedial order also mandates that BOE contract with an independent third-party with expertise in voting accessibility (the "Third Party Expert"). The remedial order provides that the parties are to confer to select the Third Party Expert, and in the event they disagree, the parties are to submit their recommendations to

- 14 -

15 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 11358 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e81465 of 4443

Magistrate Judge Pitman, who will then make the selection.4 The Third Party Expert is responsible for surveying the poll sites in New York City and providing a report on poll site accessibility to the parties and Magistrate Judge Pitman. The Third-Party Expert report is to include recommendations as to how specific poll sites may be temporarily modified to make them accessible. If the Third Party Expert concludes that a poll site cannot be reasonably modified, BOE must report to plaintiffs and the Third Party Expert whether the polling site can be relocated or made temporarily accessible.
The remedial order mandates that BOE implement the Third Party Expert's recommendations unless BOE concludes "it cannot reasonably implement a recommendation," "relocation of the polling site to an alternate location is a more appropriate response to the recommendation," or "a polling site cannot be relocated." Order, October 18, 2012, ECF No. 119, at 11. If BOE so concludes, it is to confer with the Third Party Expert and plaintiffs about alternative measures to address accessibility. If BOE, plaintiffs, and the Third Party Expert are unable to agree as to the implementation of a recommendation,

4

On January 28, 2013, after noting that the parties were unable to agree on

an expert and considering both parties' recommendations, Magistrate Judge Pitman

issued an order designating Evan Terry Associates, P.C. as the Third Party Expert.

- 15 -

16 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 11368 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e81475 of 4443
BOE may petition Judge Pitman for relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, subject to appeal in the normal course. The Third Party Expert is to train BOE employees to determine whether a poll site is accessible.
The remedial order provides that parties may petition the district court to modify it at any time.5 Moreover, it provides that the district court shall maintain jurisdiction over the implementation of the remedial order through December 16, 2016.
This appeal followed. DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law "We review an order granting summary judgment de novo and
resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought." Lederman v. New York City Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 731 F.3d 199, 202 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

5

In fact, at one point BOE did raise a substantive concern. The remedial

order was modified on May 13, 2012, after this appeal was filed, to address this concern.

The parties' briefs on appeal address the original order entered on October 18, 2012.

- 16 -

17 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 11378 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e81485 of 4443

We review a district court's decision to award injunctive relief for abuse of discretion. See Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 290 (2d Cir. 2003).
1. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act "prohibits programs and
activities receiving federal financial assistance from excluding, denying benefits to, or discriminating against 'otherwise qualified'" individuals with a disability. McElwee v. Cnty. of Orange, 700 F.3d 635, 640 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)). Title II of the ADA likewise provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132. As the "standards adopted by the two statutes are nearly identical, we consider the merits of these claims together." McElwee, 700 F.3d at 640.
To establish a violation under Section 504 or Title II, a plaintiff must demonstrate that "(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability;6 (2) the

6

Individuals with a disability are "qualified" if "with or without reasonable

modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural . . . barriers, or

the provision of auxiliary aids and services," they "meet[ ] the essential eligibility

requirements for" participation in public programs or activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12131.

- 17 -

18 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 11388 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e81495 of 4443
defendant is subject to one of the Acts; and (3) he was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the defendant's services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the defendant because of his disability." Id.
A public entity discriminates against a qualified individual with a disability when it fails to provide "meaningful access" to its benefits, programs, or services. Id. at 641; accord Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 273. Individuals may be deprived of meaningful access to public programs due to architectural barriers or a public entity's failure to modify existing facilities and practices. Indeed, "elimination of architectural barriers was one of the central aims of the [Rehabilitation] Act." Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 297 (1985). The purpose of Title II of the ADA reflects similar concerns.7 Specifically, "[r]ecognizing that failure to accommodate persons with disabilities will often have the same practical effect as outright exclusion, Congress required the States to take

7

See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5) ("[I]ndividuals with disabilities continually

encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the

discriminatory effects of architectural . . . barriers, . . . failure to make modifications to

existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria,

segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or

other opportunities.").

- 18 -

19 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 11398 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e82405 of 4443

reasonable measures to remove architectural and other barriers to accessibility." Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 531 (2004). DOJ's implementing regulations explicitly prohibit a public entity from denying individuals with disabilities access to its services because its "facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by [such individuals]." 28 C.F.R. § 35.149. 8 Accordingly, public entities "shall operate each service, program, or activity, so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities." Id. § 35.150(a).
To assure meaningful access, "reasonable accommodations in the grantee's program . . . may have to be made." Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 273 (internal quotation marks omitted). Of course, a public entity does not need to "employ any and all means to make" services accessible. Lane, 541 U.S. at 531-32. Instead, the Acts "require[ ] only reasonable modifications that would not fundamentally alter the nature of the service provided," or "impose an undue financial or administrative burden." Id. at 532 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 281.

8

"In interpreting the statutory terms we look to the views of the Justice

Department, which was charged by Congress with issuing regulations implementing

both the ADA and Section 504." Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 273-74.

- 19 -

20 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 12308 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e82415 of 4443
As the Supreme Court has recognized, Title II's implementing regulations provide a "number of ways" to satisfy the "reasonable modification requirement." Lane, 541 U.S. at 532. For example, the regulations explain that "[a] public entity may comply with the [relevant] requirements . . . through such means as redesign or acquisition of equipment, reassignment of services to accessible buildings, assignment of aides to beneficiaries, . . . [and] alteration of existing facilities." 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(b)(1). Importantly, "[a] public entity is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance" with its obligations. Id. Further, "[i]n choosing among available methods for meeting [accessibility] requirements, a public entity shall give priority to those methods that offer services, programs, and activities to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate." Id.
2. Injunctive Relief "[A]bsent clear direction to the contrary by Congress, the federal
courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute." Franklin v. Gwinnett Cnty. Pub. Schs., 503 U.S. 60, 70-71 (1992). If local authorities "fail in their affirmative

- 20 -

21 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 12318 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e82425 of 4443
obligations" under federal law, "the scope of a district court's equitable powers . . . is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies." Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971). Indeed, a "district court has 'not merely the power but the duty to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past as well as bar like discrimination in the future.'" United States v. Yonkers Bd. of Educ., 837 F.2d 1181, 1236 (2d Cir. 1987) (quoting Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145, 154 (1965)).
Although the "'remedial powers of [a district court] must be adequate to the task, . . . they are not unlimited.'" Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 51 (1990) (quoting Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124, 161 (1971)); see also Yonkers, 837 F.2d at 1235. A district court must "tailor [a] remedy to fit the nature and extent of the violation." Yonkers, 837 F.2d at 1235. Moreover, in accordance with principles of federalism, "one of the most important considerations governing the exercise of equitable power is a proper respect for the integrity and function of local government institutions." Jenkins, 495 U.S. at 51.

- 21 -

22 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 12328 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e82435 of 4443
B. Application First, we consider whether BOE is liable under Section 504 and Title
II for the systemic failure to provide meaningful access to individuals with disabilities. Second, we consider whether the remedial order was a proper exercise of the district court's discretion to grant equitable relief.
1. Violations of Section 504 and Title II BOE does not dispute that the voters plaintiffs represent are
qualified individuals with disabilities or that it is a public entity that receives federal funding. It challenges only the district court's holding with respect to the third element of a violation, whether plaintiffs were denied benefits or otherwise discriminated against because of their disabilities. Two inquiries are presented: First, whether BOE denies voters with mobility and vision disabilities meaningful access to its program and services; and second, whether BOE has failed to provide plaintiffs with a reasonable accommodation.
a. Barriers to Meaningful Access As an initial matter, BOE contends that "[b]ecause plaintiffs cannot show that any voter has been deprived of the right to participate in an election as a result of barriers to accessibility at a poll site, plaintiffs' claims fail." Appellant's

- 22 -

23 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 12338 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e82445 of 4443

Br. at 30. Plaintiffs need not, however, prove that they have been disenfranchised or otherwise "completely prevented from enjoying a service, program, or activity" to establish discrimination under Section 504 or Title II. Shotz v. Cates, 256 F.3d 1077, 1080 (11th Cir. 2001).9 Rather, plaintiffs must show that BOE has failed to "provide[ ] [them] with meaningful access to the benefit that [it] offers." Choate, 469 U.S. at 301; see also Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 273 (explaining that the relevant inquiry is "whether those with disabilities are as a practical matter able to access benefits to which they are legally entitled").
Here, the relevant benefit is the opportunity to fully participate in BOE's voting program. This includes the option to cast a private ballot on election days. See N.Y. Elec. Law § 5-601. Indeed, to assume the benefit is anything less -- such as merely the opportunity to vote at some time and in some way -- would render meaningless the mandate that public entities may not "afford[ ] persons with disabilities services that are not equal to that afforded others." Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 274 (internal quotation and citation omitted); see

9

See Lane, 541 U.S. at 514 (successful Title II plaintiff alleged he was able to

attend court proceedings only by crawling up two flights of stairs or allowing officers to

carry him); see also Am. Council of the Blind v. Paulson, 463 F. Supp. 2d 51, 59 (D.D.C.

2006), aff'd and remanded, 525 F.3d 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2008) ("[P]laintiffs do not need to

prove 'no access' to prevail" on a Section 504 claim.).

- 23 -

24 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 12348 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e8245 of 4443
also Choate, 469 U.S. at 304 ("Section 504 seeks to assure evenhanded treatment and the opportunity for handicapped individuals to participate in and benefit from programs receiving federal assistance.").
By designating inaccessible poll sites and failing to assure their accessibility through temporary equipment, procedures, and policies on election days, BOE denies plaintiffs meaningful access to its voting program. The surveys plaintiffs submitted show that year after year more than 80% of poll sites that are inspected contain at least one barrier that may prevent a person with a disability from accessing his or her assigned polling place.10 As discussed above,

10 BOE claims that the surveys plaintiffs submitted are unreliable. We reject this argument. First, BOE conceded at oral argument that there were no disputed facts on which the district court's August 8, 2012 order granting summary judgment was based. Oral Argument at 2:54:27-2:55:17. Second, the record does not indicate that BOE argued this point before the district court. Finally, BOE's arguments are purely conclusory and it has presented no evidence -- such as contrary survey results or specific errors or problems in the surveys submitted by plaintiffs -- to call the validity of plaintiffs' surveys into question. Although BOE contends that the individuals and groups completing the relevant surveys are less experienced than BOE surveyors, nothing in the record supports this claim. In fact, CIDNY is the same entity that trains the surveyors BOE employs. Even assuming that the individuals and groups unaffiliated with BOE are less experienced than BOE surveyors, this fact alone does not support the unreliability of the surveys. Moreover, we note that many courts have relied on surveys conducted by similar surveyors to find poll sites inaccessible. See Westchester Disabled on the Move, Inc. v. Cnty. of Westchester, 346 F. Supp. 2d 473, 476-77 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (relying on poll site accessibility surveys aligned with ADA guidelines to grant preliminary injunction against defendant based on violations of ADA); New

- 24 -

25 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 12358 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e82465 of 4443
these barriers include dangerous ramps at entrances deemed "accessible," inadequate signage directing voters with disabilities to accessible entrances or voting areas, blocked entryways or pathways, and inaccessible interior spaces inside voting areas.
Deposition testimony confirms that barriers exist, as documented in the surveys, and explains the practical effects that the barriers have on individuals with disabilities. For example, as discussed above, McQuade, a voter who uses a wheelchair for mobility, was unable to enter and exit her polling site without assistance from her husband because of a non-compliant ADA ramp, among other things. After this experience, McQuade testified that she was "afraid to go back to try and vote [at her assigned polling place] during subsequent elections," and therefore "decided it would be safer for [her] to use an absentee ballot" even though she would "prefer to vote alongside [her] neighbors and with [her] community." J.A. at 729. Similarly, Wolff, an individual who is legally blind, could not read and mark her ballot independently because her polling site failed to maintain workable BMD machines. These voters'
York v. Cnty. of Delaware, 82 F. Supp. 2d 12, 14-18 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (same); New York ex rel. Spitzer v. Cnty. of Schoharie, 82 F. Supp. 2d 19, 21-25 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (same).

- 25 -

26 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 12368 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e82475 of 4443
experiences, as well as others, demonstrate that barriers at poll sites effectively preclude or deter individuals with disabilities from casting a private ballot on election days.
Although McQuade and Wolff were ultimately able to cast their vote with the fortuitous assistance of others, the purpose of the Rehabilitation Act is "to empower individuals with disabilities to maximize employment, economic self-sufficiency, independence, and inclusion and integration into society." 29 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1) (emphasis added). Indeed, as we have noted, "[i]t is not enough to open the door for the handicapped . . . ; a ramp must be built so that the door can be reached." Dopico v. Goldschmidt, 687 F.2d 644, 652 (2d Cir. 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to vote should not be contingent on the happenstance that others are available to help. BOE's services were not "readily accessible" to McQuade and Wolff, and, moreover, McQuade was deterred from appearing at her poll site in subsequent elections. As we have held, "deterrence constitutes an injury under the ADA." Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 731 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir. 2013).
BOE does not offer evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether barriers to access exist. To the contrary, its own call incident logs and reports confirm the existence of these barriers.

- 26 -

27 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 12378 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e82485 of 4443
b. Reasonable Accommodations Nevertheless, BOE argues that it is not liable under the Acts because (1) there are no alternative, accessible facilities to serve as poll sites; (2) it already offers individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodation by transferring individuals from inaccessible to accessible polling sites; and (3) plaintiffs have not demonstrated that other reasonable accommodations exist. At their core, these arguments misunderstand BOE's affirmative obligations under the statutes and the nature of the accommodations that plaintiffs seek. Accordingly, they fail. BOE claims that because "no alternative facility exists to serve as a poll site, there is no reasonable accommodation that can be made that would afford a qualified individual the ability to vote at his or her regularly assigned poll site."11 Appellant's Br. at 38. Even assuming, however, that "there is no existing facility that is accessible, available, and meets the requirements to serve
11 We recognize that Title II does not require a public entity to "make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance" with its statutory obligations. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(b)(1). This provision is particularly relevant to an entity like BOE that does not own or operate any of the facilities that it designates as poll sites, but instead uses facilities operated by others. Indeed, 30% of the facilities BOE designates as poll sites are not compliant with the ADA prior to election days.

- 27 -

28 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 12388 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e82495 of 4443
as a poll site," id. at 34, DOJ's regulations make clear that the inaccessibility of existing facilities is not an excuse, but rather, a circumstance that requires a public entity to take reasonable active steps to ensure compliance with its obligations under Section 504 and Title II. Indeed, to find that BOE's responsibilities end where the very discriminatory effects of architectural and other barriers to access begin would not only frustrate the "clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities," Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 272 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)), but directly contradict the purpose of the Acts. While we agree that BOE is not expected to "create poll sites out of whole cloth," Appellant's Br. at 34, it is required to operate its voting program so that "when viewed in its entirety, [the program] is readily accessible to . . . individuals with disabilities." 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a).
The steps required by the Acts include the very accommodations that plaintiffs propose -- providing accessibility equipment and ramps, assigning individuals to assist those with disabilities, and relocating services to accessible locations. Id. at § 35.150(b). Moreover, the barriers that plaintiffs' evidence documents -- for example, missing or improperly placed accessibility equipment

- 28 -

29 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 12398 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e83405 of 4443

and locked doors at otherwise accessible entrances -- reflect systemic problems with BOE's preparation and operation of poll sites that are distinct from BOE’s obligation to designate readily-accessible facilities prior to an election day. Accordingly, the fact that BOE cannot find alternative, accessible facilities to serve as poll sites is the start, not the end, of our inquiry as to whether BOE is liable under the Acts.12
BOE next argues that it already provides reasonable accommodations for voters with disabilities by (1) reassigning these voters from inaccessible to accessible poll sites and (2) remedying barriers to access as they are made aware of them on election days. While we recognize that reassigning voters may constitute a reasonable accommodation under some circumstances, see 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(b), there is nothing in the record to show that this accommodation provides meaningful access in the circumstances here.13

12 For similar reasons, we reject BOE's argument that "plaintiffs have the burden of production to demonstrate the existence of alternative, available facilities to serve as replacement poll sites." Appellant's Br. at 35. Plaintiffs, like BOE, are certainly not required to identify facilities that are accessible prior to election days. We note that, in any event, plaintiffs did suggest alternative facilities to BOE to serve as poll sites.

13

In particular, BOE offers no evidence that it has transferred voters

from inaccessible to accessible sites or otherwise notified individuals of the possibility

of such a transfer. This lack of evidence is problematic. First, it is unclear how BOE, let

- 29 -

30 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 13308 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e83415 of 4443
Moreover, plaintiffs' evidence and BOE's own records confirm that BOE's ad hoc policy of remedying barriers to access as they occur is inadequate, especially as BOE does not respond to many accessibility issues even after they are brought to its attention.
Finally, BOE contends that plaintiffs' claims fail because they have not demonstrated that reasonable accommodations exist. Plaintiffs have, however, made a prima facie showing that the relief they obtained -- the district court's remedial order, which was fashioned after BOE had multiple opportunities to be heard -- "represents an attempt at reasonable accommodation" that "at its core orders [BOE] to perform its statutory

alone an individual voter, would know ten days prior to an election that a particular poll site is inaccessible. Indeed, BOE concedes that several sites do not meet accessibility standards, but it has only officially identified two inaccessible polling places. Further, most of the barriers that plaintiffs report are impossible for voters to perceive until they appear at polling sites on an election day. Second, plaintiffs' undisputed evidence demonstrates that 80% or more of the poll sites surveyed on election days have one or more significant barriers to access. As a practical matter, then, it would seem nearly impossible that this accommodation would provide meaningful access for many individuals with disabilities. Accordingly, while the policy of reassigning voters to accessible polling sites could theoretically constitute a reasonable accommodation, there is nothing in the record to support that it provides meaningful access to individuals with disabilities.

- 30 -

31 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 13318 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e83425 of 4443
[obligations], and imposes some procedural mechanisms designed to effectuate this goal," Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 280, as discussed below.14
It is BOE's responsibility, then, to show that the accommodations plaintiffs propose would be unreasonable to implement. See Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 280 ("[I]t is enough for the plaintiff to suggest the existence of a plausible accommodation, the costs of which, facially, do not clearly exceed its benefits," and once this is done "the risk of nonpersuasion falls on the defendant.") (internal quotation marks omitted). In particular, BOE must demonstrate that a proposed accommodation would "fundamentally alter the nature of [its voting program]" or "impose an undue financial or administrative burden" on its operation. Lane, 541 U.S. at 532.15 For the reasons discussed below, BOE has not made this showing.

14 We need not decide whether plaintiffs or defendants bear the initial burden regarding reasonable accommodation because, even if we accept defendants' argument that plaintiffs bear the initial burden, there is no question that plaintiffs have met that burden here.
15 See also Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 603-04 (1999) (Ginsburg, J., plurality opinion) (discussing the reasonable modification regulation as the State's "fundamental-alteration defense"); id. at 607 (Stevens, J., concurring) (explaining that a "state may assert, as an affirmative defense, that the requested modification would cause a fundamental alteration of a State's services and programs").

- 31 -

32 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 13328 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e83435 of 4443
In sum, we agree with the district court that the undisputed facts demonstrate that BOE fails to provide individuals with meaningful access to its voting program and that the proposed accommodations, as set forth in the remedial order discussed below, are reasonable and do not fundamentally alter BOE's voting program or impose an undue burden on its operation. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
2. Injunctive Relief We turn to the issue of relief, and conclude that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs injunctive relief. As Congress did not express any intent to limit the remedies
available under Title II or Section 504, equitable relief was proper for the district court to consider. See Franklin, 503 U.S. at 70-71; cf. Henrietta D., 331 F.3d at 28084. Nevertheless, the district court's "remedial powers . . . are not unlimited." Jenkins, 495 U.S. at 51 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, while equitable relief under the Acts is possible, this threshold determination is only part of the inquiry. We must consider whether the remedial order is "tailor[ed] to fit the nature and extent of the violation," Yonkers, 837 F.2d at 1235, and

- 32 -

33 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 13338 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e83445 of 4443
whether the "exercise of equitable power [reflects] a proper respect for the integrity and function of local government institutions," Jenkins, 495 U.S. at 51. We address these considerations in turn.
a. Tailored to Fit the Nature and Extent of BOE's Violations First, we find that the remedial order is "tailor[ed] . . . to fit the nature and extent of [BOE's] violation[s]." Yonkers, 887 F.2d at 1235. Plaintiffs' evidence shows that barriers to access are pervasive and stem both from BOE's inadequate operation of poll sites on election days and its failure to properly plan to make facilities temporarily accessible. BOE's evidence and arguments, in turn, reveal that although it has some procedures and policies in place to accommodate individuals with disabilities, these accommodations consistently fall short. Moreover, the record suggests that in practice these mechanisms may not receive high priority or, in any event, have proven difficult for BOE to implement.16

16 By way of example, while BOE maintains that it has attempted to survey poll sites over the past several years, it presented no evidence of these surveys. Indeed, the fact that it has only labeled two of 1,300 sites inaccessible, but also concedes that prior to election days 30% of facilities it uses for poll sites are inaccessible, suggests that BOE has much work to do.

- 33 -

34 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 13348 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e8345 of 4443
The remedial order addresses these issues. Specifically, to remedy violations that likely arise from BOE's operation of poll sites, the first part of the order outlines policies and procedures for on-site accessibility coordinators and AD monitors (the "Operation Provisions"). The second part attempts to remedy barriers to access or ineffective accommodations that likely stem from BOE's failure to identify accessible facilities or determine how sites may be temporarily modified (the "Facilities Provisions"). The Facilities Provisions create a process by which the Third Party Expert surveys facilities and makes suggestions to BOE as to how to improve accessibility. BOE then adopts the suggestions or confers with the Third Party Expert to find alternative measures.
Further, the remedial order provides accountability mechanisms to ensure that BOE is focusing on its statutory obligations to provide meaningful access to individuals with disabilities. In particular, it requires (1) on-site accessibility coordinators and AD monitors to document barriers on election days and indicate how, if at all, these barriers were addressed; (2) BOE to compile and write a report from the on-site data; and (3) BOE to work with the Third Party Expert to find ways to make facilities accessible. In other words, the processes in the remedial order force BOE to move beyond its claim that it is

- 34 -

35 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 13358 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e83465 of 4443
doing all that it can to provide reasonable accommodations, and to begin to proactively identify barriers, document its efforts, reflect on its challenges and successes to provide meaningful access, and use this information to improve the accessibility of its voting program over time.
BOE argues that "certain sections of the order exceed the requirements of the applicable statutes." Appellant's Letter Br. at 5. We disagree. Title II and Section 504 mandate that BOE provide individuals with disabilities meaningful access to its voting program by making reasonable modifications. This meaningful access standard is "responsive to two powerful but countervailing considerations -- the need to give effect to the statutory objectives and the desire to keep [the Acts] within manageable bounds." Choate, 469 U.S. at 299. We find that the remedial order reflects this standard. Its provisions balance BOE's obligations to modify facilities, policies, and procedures with its practical resource constraints. In particular, the Operations Provisions build on personnel, policies, and procedures that BOE already has in place. The Facilities Provisions provide that BOE need not adopt a recommendation if, among other things, it concludes that it "cannot reasonably implement a recommendation." Order, October 18, 2012, ECF No. 119, at 11. This determination then triggers an

- 35 -

36 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 13368 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e83475 of 4443
iterative process between BOE and the Third Party Expert to confer about alternative, more feasible measures to provide accommodation.
Finally, BOE argues that the remedial order contains "excesses" that "generally fall into the categories of reporting and the expense associated with compliance with the order." Appellant's Letter Br. at 5. As an initial matter, we emphasize that despite its opportunity to address the concerns it had with the remedial order before the district court, BOE did not argue below that any of its components were unreasonable. Nor did BOE make this claim in its opening or reply brief on appeal. Only after we ordered BOE to submit a "letter brief addressing in further detail its objections to the [d]istrict [c]ourt's order on remedies" did BOE argue, for the first time on appeal, that complying with certain provisions of the order would "place[ ] an undue burden" on its voting program. Id. at 7.
In particular, BOE claims that (1) a worker at each poll site will not be able to serve as an on-site accessibility coordinator because of other responsibilities; (2) BOE will have difficulty collecting data from its poll sites; (3) and, depending on how many poll sites the Third Party Expert concludes cannot be modified temporarily, BOE may have difficulty suggesting alternative sites or

- 36 -

37 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 13378 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e83485 of 4443
modifications. Without more than conclusory claims that complying with the remedial order may be challenging, we are not persuaded that the accommodations will fundamentally alter BOE's voting program or impose an undue burden on its operation.
To the extent that complying with the remedial order becomes unreasonable, the remedial order provides mechanisms through which BOE may petition the district court, and if necessary this Court, for relief. Moreover, we note that at the time of this appeal, BOE has already proceeded to implement the remedial order and has not pointed to any actual undue burden from its efforts to comply with it thus far. In the one instance where BOE raised a concern, the remedial order was modified to address the concern.
Accordingly, we conclude that the remedial order is tailored to respond to and remedy BOE's violations of Section 504 and Title II.
b. Respect for the Integrity and Function of BOE Second, we find that both the process through which the district court provided injunctive relief and the remedial order itself reflect "a proper respect for the integrity and function of local government institutions." Jenkins, 495 U.S. at 51.

- 37 -

38 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 13388 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e83495 of 4443
We emphasize that "[a]s public servants, the officials of the State [or City] must be presumed to have a high degree of competence in deciding how best to discharge their governmental responsibilities." Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 442 (2004). Indeed, State and local officials are elected, in part, "to bring new insights and solutions to problems of allocating revenues and resources." Id. Hence, "[r]estraint and initial deference to state institutional authorities in curing [unlawful] conditions are . . . advisable as a matter of realism; federal courts lack the facilities or expertise [to administer] plans designed to assure that a state will provide . . . acceptable . . . services." Dean v. Coughlin, 804 F.2d 207, 213-214 (2d Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we review both the process that led the district court to issue the remedial order and its substantive provisions with these important federalism and institutional capacity principles in mind.
BOE argues that the district court "erred in adopting its own detailed remedial plan instead of directing [BOE] to formulate a plan for curing any perceived constitutional deficiencies in the existing system." Appellant's Br. at 41. The district court, however, gave BOE multiple opportunities to submit a written plan, to offer suggestions, to test its proposed accommodations, and to

- 38 -

39 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 13398 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e8405 of 4443
modify DOJ's proposal based on its concerns. 17 The district court issued a plan only after BOE failed to provide written suggestions or demonstrate the efficacy of its accommodations for the September 2012 Election. Accordingly, the district court did not ignore the notion that it is appropriate, if not preferable, to give a local entity an opportunity to propose ways to remedy statutory deficiencies.18 Rather, in light of its extensive efforts to consider BOE's proposals and input, we conclude that the district court demonstrated proper "[r]estraint and initial deference" to BOE in "curing [the relevant] conditions." Coughlin, 804 F.2d at 213.
The substance of the remedial order also reflects proper respect for BOE. First, the remedial order addresses the concerns BOE voiced at hearings

17 See Order, Aug. 15, 2012, ECF No. 107, at 1 (parties required to "meet, at least once, and develop potential remedies as a basis for the . . . hearing before the Court"); Tr. of Hearing on Aug. 27, 2012, 14:10-11, 45:22-25, 46:1-4, Oct. 19, 2012, ECF No. 120 (noting that BOE "has not had an opportunity to reduce [its suggestions] to writing" and giving parties additional time "to get together and talk and work out things that are helpful, with open minds . . . so that when you appear before me [at the next hearing], I will be in a better position to know whether or not some more formal relationship imposed by the Court is the only alternative."); Tr. of Hearing on Oct. 15, 2012, 2:20-24, 3:1-19 (noting submissions from parties, including a status report from BOE, but no proposed plan from BOE).
18 See, e.g., Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-48 (1979); Dean, 804 F.2d at 213-14.

- 39 -

40 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 14308 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e8415 of 4443

before the district court: its inability to hire additional poll workers19 and that CIDNY would have a controlling role in any plan.20
Second, the remedial order reflects the awareness that courts often do not have the expertise or the institutional capacity "needed for formulation and day-to-day administration of detailed plans designed to assure that [a public entity] will provide . . . acceptable . . . services." Id. at 213-14. As an initial matter, we note that the remedial order is substantially based on the DOJ's proposed order. The DOJ's proposed order, in turn, is modeled after a settlement agreement that the DOJ entered into with Philadelphia, a city with similar accessibility challenges. The district court did not, therefore, depend on its own ideas of how to improve BOE's program, but rather relied on a tested remedial plan proposed by the DOJ, the federal agency tasked with overseeing the implementation of the Acts, whose views about the Acts "warrant respect." Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 598.
Further, as noted above, the remedial order is largely procedural in nature. In other words, it does not mandate particular changes or modifications,
19 Order, Oct. 18, 2012, ECF No. 119, at 3 ("This paragraph does not require the BOE to hire any additional staff at its poll sites.").
20 Id. at 2-3 (providing after the November 6, 2012 General Election "BOE may contract with a third-party, mutually agreed upon by the parties, to develop training").

- 40 -

41 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 14318 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e8425 of 4443
but rather creates a framework for BOE to cooperate with experts and plaintiffs to confront accessibility challenges and develop feasible accommodations over time. The district court's role, exercised through Magistrate Judge Pitman, is to oversee this process and mediate conflict among the parties and experts, rather than effectively run or take over the BOE. Importantly, the remedial order does not contemplate the district court's oversight indefinitely; instead it sets December 31, 2016 as a clear end date for the district court's jurisdiction.
Third, the remedial order implicitly recognizes BOE's central role in managing its voting program and the need for BOE to build capacity to identify and address barriers to access on its own. Indeed, many of its provisions provide opportunities for BOE to decide what is in its best interest or to propose alternatives to the Third Party Expert's suggestions to reach the same accessibility goals. The remedial order also stresses that the Third Party Expert "shall train employees of the BOE on using the survey instrument and determining whether a polling site location is or can be made accessible." Order, October 18, 2012, ECF No. 119, at 12-13.

- 41 -

42 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 14328 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e8435 of 4443
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs injunctive relief and fashioning the remedial plan here.
We emphasize that while the remedial order, on its face, respects BOE's responsibilities and recognizes the limited capacity of the district court to suggest ways in which BOE should "discharge [those] responsibilities," Frew, 540 U.S. at 442, the district court must, in practice, exercise prudent oversight. We recognize -- and the process that the remedial order creates reflects -- that providing meaningful access to individuals with disabilities in a large, crowded city with inaccessible facilities is not an easy task that lends itself to simple or singular solutions. Hence, the district court's supervision should recognize that there are many ways BOE may meet its statutory obligations and focus on building and strengthening BOE's capacity to identify and address the accessibility issues its program confronts. Indeed, the very success of the remedial order depends, in part, on BOE's ability by December 31, 2016 to develop and implement its own plan to work towards providing meaningful access to all of the voters that its serves. We are confident the district court will exercise its oversight with this goal in mind.

- 42 -

43 of 44

CCaassee: 12:1-04-4c1v2-056D5o3c-DumABen-Ht:B1P41-D2ocuPmaegnet: 14338 F0il6e/d090/62/00194/14 1P2a4g2e8445 of 4443
CONCLUSION We conclude that the district court correctly held that BOE has failed to grant voters with disabilities meaningful access to its voting program. We also find that the remedial order is a proper exercise of the district court's authority to grant equitable relief. Accordingly, the order is AFFIRMED.

- 43 -

44 of 44

 
 =lo::'fr;::::'s=::'";;:~--~~-~ Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 150 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 8 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 146 Filed 02/ r.:;=lg)=ijfff=,.....,.=gW.i=..=

DOCU1~ilil\Yf

!
l~ t
;u'-'"'-'-"-" ~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

\D~O?C~~=-Fl~E~~ ~. Jl!I

----------------------------------------------------------------------- X

UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,
Plaintiffs,
-against-
BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JULIE DENT, in her official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City ofNew York,

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
10 CV 5653 (DAB)

Defendants.

----------------------------------------------------------------------- X

WHEREAS, by Complaint dated July 26, 2010, (the "Complaint"), plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action (together, the "Plaintiffs"), commenced this action alleging that defendants were in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide fully accessible poll sites to persons registered to vote within the City of New York;
WHEREAS, this Court granted judgment in favor of plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 56 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
WHEREAS, said judgment was sustained on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Judicial Circuit;
WHEREAS, the parties and their respective counsel wish to resolve the remaining issue of Plaintiffs' claim for attorneys' fees and costs in this action without further proceedings;

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 150 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 8 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 146 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 8
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, as follows:
1. The above-referenced action is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, with the Court retaining continuing jurisdiction regarding enforcement and compliance with the Court's orders dated August 8, 2012 (Dkt. No. 105), October 18, 2012 (Dkt. No. 119), and May 13, 2013 (Dkt. No. 130), and without costs, expenses, or fees in excess of the amount specified in paragraphs "2" and "3" below.
2. The City of New York hereby agrees to pay Plaintiffs, the sum of $1,800,000, by check made payable to Disability Rights Advocates, one of the attorneys for Plaintiffs, in full and final satisfaction of all monetary claims that were or could have been raised in this action, including claims for costs, expenses and attorney fees. Plaintiffs reserve their rights to recover reasonable fees and costs for monitoring and enforcing the terms of the Court's orders dated August 8, 2012 (Dkt. No. 105), October 18,2012 (Dkt. No. 119), and May 13,2013 (Dkt. No. 130).
3. In consideration for payment of these sums and other good and valuable consideration described herein, plaintiffs and their counsel agree to release defendants, their successors and/or assigns, and all present or former officials, employees, representatives, and/or agents of the Board of Elections in the City of New York, and the City of New York (collectively, the "Released Parties"), from any and all claims, liabilities, and causes of action that were or could have been asserted by plaintiffs and/or their counsel against any of the Released Parties arising out of or related to the events and/or occurrences alleged in the complaint in this action, including all claims for attorney's fees, expenses, and costs. This release does not prevent Plaintiffs from asserting claims related to enforcement of the Court's orders
2

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 150 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 8 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 146 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 8
dated August 8, 2012 (Dkt. No. 105), October 18, 2012 (Dkt. No. 119), and May 13, 2013 (Dkt. No. 130).
4. In the event that any taxing authority or a court determines that the payment set forth in paragraph "2" herein made to plaintiff by the City of New York and/or the Board of Elections in the City of New York is subject to personal income tax, any taxes, interest or penalties owed by plaintiff, such tax, interest, and/or penalties shall be the sole responsibility of plaintiffs and/or their counsel.
5. Plaintiffs and their counsel shall execute and deliver to defendants' attorney all documents necessary to effect this settlement, including, without limitation, a release based on the terms of paragraph 3 above, being substantially in the forms annexed hereto as Exhibit A. The payment set forth above is subject to and conditioned on delivery of such documents to defendants' undersigned attorneys.
6. Plaintiffs will have the sole responsibility to satisfy any lien or claim, whether known or unknown, asserted against the settlement proceeds or arising from the settlement. If any lien, claim or action is brought against any defendant arising from the settlement or asserted against the settlement proceeds, plaintiffs will defend, indemnify and hold harmless all defendants and the related entities, agents, servants, faculty, trustees and employees of each of them.
7. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be an admission by the defendants that they have in any manner or way violated plaintiffs' rights, or the rights of any other person or entity, as defined in the constitutions, statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations of the United States, the State ofNew York, or the City ofNew York or any other rules, regulations
3

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 150 Filed 03/10/15 Page 4 of 8 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 146 Filed 02/05/15 Page 4 of 8
;·,'
.,

or bylaws of any department or subdivision ofthe City ofNew York. This stipulation shall not

be admissible in, nor is it related to, any other litigation or settlement negotiations. 8. Plaintiffs make no claim of or for vicarious liability against any other

party, whether named or unnamed, for any acts or omissions ofthe defendants or their related entities, agents, servants, faculty, and employees alleged in the Complaint Nothing contained. herein shall be deemed to constitute a policy or practice of the City of New York and/or the

Board of Elections in the City of New York.

9. This Stipulation contains all tbe terms and conditions agreed upon by the

parties hereto, and no oral agreement entered into at any time nor any written agreement entered

;:.

into prior to tbe execution of this Stipulation regarding the subject matter of the inStant

proceeding shall be deemed to exist, or to bind the parties hereto, or to vary the terms and

conditions contained herein.

Dated: New Yo.rkjJ.ew York February" 2015
DISABILITY RIGHTS,ADVOCATES Attorney for Plaintiffs 40 Worth Street lOth Floor New York, New York 10013 (212} 644-8644

NFeebwruYaoryrk·,;,··,···t..".·.).2{")~1Y5ork ~-·. :··~. :,

ZACHARY W. CARTER
Corporation Counsel

ofthe City ofNew York

Attorney for Defendants

100 Church Street, Room 2~ 126
New York,··· 'Y. 10007

(212)

' 7

4

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 150 Filed 03/10/15 Page 5 of 8 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 146 Filed 02/05/15 Page 5 of 8
CUTI HECKER WANG LLP Attorney for Plaintiffs 305 Broadway New York, New York 10007 (212) 620-2600
THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MINTZNER, P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiffs 1350 Broadway Suite 1400 NewYork,NewYork 10018 (646) 843-8180
By: ____________________________________________ Kevin Mintzner
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION
By: ____________________________ James Weisman Senior Vice President and General Counsel
DISABLED IN ACTION
By: ___________________________ Jean Ryan Vice President - Public Affairs
5

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 150 Filed 03/10/15 Page 6 of 8 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 146 Filed 02/05/15 Page 6 of 8
CUTI HECKER WANG LLP Attorney for Plaintiffs 305 Broadway New York, New York 10007 (212) 620-2600
By: _________________________________________________ Mariann Meier Wang
THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MINTZJJ'ER, P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiffs 1350 Broadway Suite 1400 New York, New York 10018 (646) 843-8180
Kevin Mint~er
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION
By: _________________________
James Weisman
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
DISABLED IN ACTION
By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Jean Ryan Vice President - Public Affairs
5

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 150 Filed 03/10/15 Page 7 of 8

02/04/201517::.18 FAX 7J.Il74ona:.::

J KXA.N .

.

·

'tf:J"""'"'v" ...

Case l:lu-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 14a···Fifed 02/05/15 PageToT8

CUTI BECKER WANG LLP Attorney tor Plaintiffs 305 Broadway New York, New York 10007
(212} 620·2600
By: -M-a-xi-an-n-M--ei-er-W--an-g-----
THE LAW OFFICE OF
KEVIN MINTZNER, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiffs 1350 Broadway Suite 1400 New York, New York 10018 (646) 843-8180
By:--------~------------------------------
Kevin Mintzner
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION
By: ---------James Weisman Senior Vice President · and General Counsel
DISABLED IN ACTION
Public Affairs
5

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 150 Filed 03/10/15 Page 8 of 8 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 146 Filed 02/05/15 Page 8 of 8

CUTI HECKER WANG LLP Attorney for Plaintiffs 305 Broadway New York, New York I 0007 (212) 620-2600
By: -M-a-ri-an-o-M--ei-er-W--an-g---------------------------------------------
THE LAW OFFICE OF KEVIN MINTZNER, P.C.
Attorney for Plaintiffs 1350 Broadway Suite 1400 New York, New York 10018 (646) 843-8180
By: -K-e-vi-n-M-i-nt-zn-e-r--------------------------------
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION

es Weisman Vice President General Counsel
DISABLED IN ACTION
By: -Je-a-n-R-ya-n--------------------
Vice President~ Public Affairs

SOO:RbEf\ED ~ . .......

,;..·

 
 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, and DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization:
Plaintiffs,
-against-
BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK and JULIE DENT, in her official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------x

IUSDCSDNY DOCU~1ENT
i\ ELECI'RONICALLY FILED
\\t\ lr'~"".\Oi:·\F#p· t-I,-ED-.-:-10_0....,r..-!71.-r-1-
t~.-~;:... ::-'.. _,. - --,====...,..,;:;~;;::::::=--'
10 Civ. 5653 (DAB) (HBP) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

To THE HONORABLE DEBORAH A. BATTS, United States District Judge,

I. Introduction

By notice of Motion dated January 27, 2017 (Docket Item ("D.I.") 182), plaintiffs move for an Order pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, joining the New York City Department of Education (the "DOE") as a defendant in this action and directing the DOE to: (1) permanently resolve accessibility barriers in specified public schools, and (2) provide training

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 2 of 29
for and/or institute disciplinary action against DOE employees who interfere with efforts to make polling sites in DOE facilities accessible on election days.
For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs' motion is denied.
II. Facts
A. The Board of Election's Voting Program
Under New York Election Law Section 4-104(1), the Board of Elections (the "BOE") is responsible for designating polling sites each election day. Each polling site that the BOE designates must "be accessible to citizens with disabilities and comply with accessibility guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990." N.Y. Elec. Law§ 4-104(1-a). "Wherever possible," the BOE should designate buildings exempt from taxation as polling sites, including, but not limited to, fire houses, municipal buildings and public schools. N.Y. Elec. Law§ 4-104(8). Owners and lessees of publicly owned buildings designated as polling sites must "make available a room or such rooms in such building which are suitable for registration and voting," and which the BOE deems "accessible to physically disabled voters." N.Y. Elec. Law§ 4-104(3). All owners and lessees of
2

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 3 of 29
public buildings, except the DOE, may refuse a BOE designation to use one of its buildings as a polling site within 30 days of designation. N.Y. Elec. Law§ 4-104(3). "Any polling site deemed not to meet existing accessibility standards must make necessary changes and/or modifications, or be moved to a verified accessible polling place within six months." N.Y. Elec. Law§ 4104 (1-b).
B. Facts Giving Rise to Plaintiffs' Motion
On July 26, 2010, plaintiffs commenced this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, et. ~., "on behalf of voters with mobility and/or visual disabilities who reside in New York City and are registered to vote, but have encountered, or are at risk of encountering," unlawful accessibility barriers at polling sites. United Spinal Ass'n v. Bd. of Elections, 882 F. Supp. 2d 615, 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (Batts, D.J.), aff'd sub nom., Disability in Action v. Bd. of Elections, 752 F.3d 189 (2d Cir. 2014). The Honorable Deborah A. Batts, United States District Judge, granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on August 8, 2012, concluding that defendants had failed to resolve "pervasive and recurring barriers to accessibility on election days" at polling sites.
3

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 4 of 29
United Spinal Ass'n v. Bd. of Elections, supra, 882 F. Supp. 2d at 624. Judge Batts issued a remedial Order on October 18, 2012
(Order of the Honorable Deborah A. Batts, dated October 18, 2012
(D.I. 119) ), which was later modified on May 13, 2013 (Modified Order of the Honorable Deborah A. Batts, dated May 13, 2013 (D.I. 130) ("May 13, 2013 Mod. Order")) and subsequently extended, with the consent of both parties, on January 4, 2017 (Order of the Honorable Deborah A. Batts, dated January 4, 2017 (D.I. 181)) (collectively, "the Remedial Orders") .
Among other things, the Remedial Orders required defendants to contract with an "independent third party expert" (the "Expert") to conduct surveys of "as many polling sites as practicable," and generate reports detailing its findings and recommendations to make polling sites accessible (May 13, 2013 Mod. Order, ~~ 8, 10). Specifically, the Remedial Orders direct the Expert to determine whether each surveyed polling site can "reasonably be made temporarily accessible on the day of any election," and, if so, what temporary modifications are needed and how can they be accomplished (May 13, 2013 Mod. Order, ~ 13 (a)). If the surveyed polling site is a publicly owned building, the Expert is also to determine "whether it is reasonable to modify" the location permanently (May 13 Mod. Order, ~ 13 (b) (emphasis in original)). Defendants must "implement all recommenda-
4

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 5 of 29
tions" made by the Expert, subject to their right to challenge those proposals, in order to comply with the Remedial Orders (May 13, 2013 Mod. Order, ~ 15(b)).
On May 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the May 13, 2013 Modified Order, finding, among other things, that it is sufficiently tailored to the "nature and extent" of defendants' ADA violations, because it directs defendants to "identify accessible facilities or determine how sites may be temporarily modified," and make those modifications. See Disabled in Action v. Bd. of Elections, supra, 752 F.3d at 203 (emphasis added). Because it was never made a party to this action, the DOE is not currently bound by the Remedial Orders (see May 13, 2013 Mod. Order, ~ 15).
Defendants hired Evan Terry Associates ("ETA") as its Expert (see Declaration of Claire Molholm, dated January 27, 2017 (D. I. 18 4) ( "Molholm Deel. ") , ~ 2) . ETA conducted voter accessibility surveys and generated reports for 810 active polling sites (see ETA's Site-Category Analysis, dated January 18, 2017, annexed as Ex. A to Molholm Deel.). ETA generated two types of reports for each polling site: (1) a longer report with findings and recommendations that is shared with the parties only (the "Long-Form Report") (see, ~.g., ADA Survey Final Report by ETA for BOE regarding P.S. 165, dated October 28, 2014 ("P.S. 165
5

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 6 of 29
Long-Form Report"), annexed as Ex. C to Declaration of Christina Brandt-Young, dated January 27, 2017 (D.I. 185) ("Brandt-Young Deel.")), and (2) a shorter report summarizing the corresponding Long-Form Report for the polling site, which is shared with the parties and the Court (the "Short-Form Report") (see, ~.g., ADA Survey Summary Report by ETA for BOE Regarding P.S. 165, dated October 28, 2014 ("P.S. 165 Short-form Report"), at 3, annexed as Ex. D to Brandt-Young Deel.)
The Long-Form Reports contain photographs, maps, diagrams and detailed commentary concerning each polling site barrier (see P.S. 165 Long-Form Report, at 8-45). The Long-Form Reports also recommend temporary and permanent solutions for accessibility barriers at each polling site surveyed and provide the estimated aggregate cost of the recommended permanent and temporary solutions at each polling site, respectively (see P.S. 165 Long-Form Report at 46) . 1 The Long-Form Report is addressed to the BOE only and does not indicate that any entity other than the BOE is expected to bear the costs of ETA's proposed modifications (see P.S. 165 Long-Form Report).
The Short-Form Reports contain ETA's determinations
1 The P.S. 165 Long-Form Report estimates that all permanent changes at that school will cost $10,833.20, while all temporary changes will cost $11,596.84 (P.S. 165 Long-Form Report at 46).
6

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 7 of 29
with respect to the reasonableness of its recommended permanent modifications (see P.S. 165 Short-form Report, at 3). Plaintiffs claim ETA considers "almost all" of its proposed permanent solutions "reasonable" (Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Join, dated January 27, 2017 (D.I. 183) ("Pls. Mem. of Law"), at 7) . 2
Plaintiffs contend that the DOE controls 442 of the 810 active polling sites reviewed by ETA (see ETA's Public School Site-Category Analysis, dated January 18, 2017 ("ETA Public School Analysis"), annexed as Ex. B to Molholm Decl.), 3 and that approximately half of all polling sites on any election day are located at DOE facilities (see Molholm Deel., ! 5) . 4 Of the 442 active polling sites located at DOE facilities, the ETA found that: (1) 417 polling sites require temporary remedial measures; (2) 13 polling sites require temporary remedial measures and a reduction in voters and (3) 12 polling sites must be moved
2 ETA does not provide any detail, reasoning or analysis in support of its conclusion that its proposed permanent alterations to P.S. 165 are "reasonable" (P.S. 165 Short-Form Report at 4).
3 ETA has surveyed a total of 445 polling sites located at public schools (see ETA Public School Analysis). However, three of those polling sites are no longer used as polling sites (see ETA Public School Analysis)
4 Plaintiffs' analysis shows that 55% of polling sites reviewed by ETA, thus far, and 53% of polling sites used in the November 2016 General Election, were located at public schools (Molholm Deel;, ! 5).
7

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 8 of 29
entirely (see ETA's Public School Analysis). Plaintiffs also note that the Department of Justice has determined that approximately 83% of DOE-controlled public schools are "not fully accessible to people with disabilities," based on data collected and documented by the City (Letter of United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, dated December 21, 2015 ("DOJ Letter"), at 1, annexed as Ex. E to Brandt-Young Deel.). The DOJ letter recommends, among other things, that the DOE should give priority to "increas[ing] the accessibility of the first floors of school buildings," (DOJ Letter, at 11). The DOE's Amended Proposed Five Year Capital Plan for Fiscal Years 2015-2019, earmarks $127.6 million to increasing the accessibility of DOE buildings, amounting to 0.83% of the DOE's proposed $15.44 billion budget. See DOE's "Amended Five Year Capital Plan for Fiscal Years 2015-2019 7, 40(2016), https://dnnhh5ccl.blob.core.windows.net/portals/0/Capital Plan/Capital_plans/11232016 15 19 CapitalPlan.pdf?sr=b&si=DNNFileManagerPolicy&sig=TMM1IKX5k6%2B 6BLufAp7QZINoj2suUi6%2FH60jI2AWEzI%3D.
Defendants have collected and recorded election day incidents relating to accessibility issues at polling sites, including polling sites located at DOE-controlled public schools (see BOE Election Incident Log for the April 19, 2016 Presidential Primary Election, dated June 13, 2016 ("April 2016 BOE
8

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 9 of 29
Complaint Log"), annexed as Ex. F to Brandt-Young Deel.; BOE Election Incident Log for the November 3, 2015 General Election, dated January 26, 2016 ("November 2015 BOE Complaint Long"), annexed as Ex. G to Brandt-Young Deel.). Defendants recorded 64 complaints at 25 DOE public schools during the April 19, 2016 Presidential Primary Election (see April 2016 BOE Election Incident Log), and 12 complaints at four DOE public schools during the smaller November 3, 2015 General Election (see November 3, 2015 BOE Election Incident Log). The most common complaints were: (1) DOE employees' use of polling site space for non-voting purposes; (2) faulty or misplaced accessibility ramps; (3) confusing or misplaced temporary signs and (4) DOE employees' resistance to the BOE's ADA Coordinators' efforts to resolve these problems (see April 2016 BOE Complaint Log; November 2015 BOE Complaint Log) .
Defendants' counsel has also described defendants' difficulties with the DOE with respect to the implementation of the Remedial Orders. For instance, at a March 19, 2015 Discovery Hearing, defendants' counsel stated that DOE staff "does not let BOE staff into the designated poll[ing] site location at a minimum of twenty public-school poll[ing] sites per election," (Transcript of Proceedings regarding the Discovery Hearing held March 19, 2015, dated October 26, 2015 (D.I. 158), 70:6-15). On
9

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 10 of 29
at least two occasions, the BOE was forced to send its lawyers to polling sites located at public schools to ensure BOE employees could implement temporary accessibility measures (see April 2016 BOE Complaint Log at 2, 6). Plaintiffs even assert that, in at least one instance, "a poll worker trying to gain compliance from DOE officials" was compelled to call the police and "threatened to have a principal and custodian arrested," (Pls. Mem. of Law at 10) .
3. Procedural History
On January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed their notice of motion to join the DOE for purposes of implementing the Remedial Order. Although plaintiffs credit defendants for their intention "to remedy every problem ETA has identified, whether by implementing individual solutions or by moving poll[ing] sites to less problematic locations," plaintiffs argue that the "near-absolute prevalence of architectural barriers at polling places and the interference of DOE personnel in elections constitute extraordinary circumstances that frustrate the implementation of the Remedial Order." (Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law, dated March 27, 2017 (D.I. 97) ("Pls. Reply Mem. of Law"), at 1). Accordingly, plaintiffs seek an Order joining the DOE to this action, and the issuance of such other Orders "as are required to
10

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 11 of 29
achieve the ends of justice," (D. I. 182). Specifically, plaintiffs request an Order directing the DOE to: (1) permanently resolve accessibility barriers identified by ETA at all public schools, and (2) take steps to ensure that [DOE] employees do not obstruct the accessibility of polling sites in DOE facilities. Defendants "take no position in connection with Plaintiffs' motion" (Defendants' Statement of No Position in Connection with Plaintiffs' Motion, dated March 20, 2017 (D.I. 195)).
III. Analysis
A. Legal Standards
The All Writs Act provides, in pertinent part, that "all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 28 U.S.C. s 1651 (a). "The [Supreme] Court has repeatedly recognized the power of a federal court to issue such commands under the All Writs Act as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders it has previously issued in its jurisdiction otherwise obtained." United States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 171 (1977).
11

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 12 of 29

1. Jurisdiction

One of the statutory requirements of the All Writs Act

is that any writ issued by a federal court, pursuant to its

provisions, must be "in aid of" that court's jurisdiction. 28
u.s.c. § 1651. The All Writs Act does not itself confer juris-

diction on a federal court to issue an order. United States v.

Denedo, 556 U.S. 904, 913 (2009), citing Clinton v. Goldsmith,

526 U.S. 529, 534-535 (1999); accord Henson v. Ciba-Geigy Corp.,

261 F.3d 1065, 1070 (11th Cir. 2001). Rather, the All Writs Act

authorizes a federal court to issue necessary orders when the

court has jurisdiction over the underlying action. Baker

Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfeiderer Corp., 710 F.2d 1561, 1565

(Fed. Cir. 1983); accord Brittingham v. Comm'r, 451 F.2d 315, 317

(5th Cir. 1971) ("It is settled that

. the All Writs Act, by

itself, creates no jurisdiction in the district courts. It

empowers them only to issue writs in aid of jurisdiction

acquired on some other independent ground."). Thus, a court must

have jurisdiction over the underlying action before it can issue

an order pursuant to the All Writs Act.

12

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 13 of 29
2. Necessary or Appropriate
"The All Writs Act commits to the Court's discretion whether to issue writs." Gulino v. Bd. of Educ., 96 Civ. 8414 (KMW), 2016 WL 7320775 at *14 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2016) (Report of Special Master), adopted at, 2016 WL 7243544 (S.D.N.Y. December 14, 2016) (Wood, D. J.), citing Citigroup, Inc. v. Abu Dhabi Investment Auth., 776 F.3d 126, 130 (2d Cir. 2015). "The power conferred by the [All Writs] Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who []though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing[] are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice." United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 174; accord Dunn v. N.Y. State Dep't of Labor, 594 F. Supp. 238, 242 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 1984) (Duffy, D.J.).
For example, in United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 159, the District Court issued an Order authorizing the installation of pen registers with respect to two telephones that the government suspected were being used in connection with an illegal gambling enterprise. The Order also directed the telephone company to furnish the government with "all information, facilities, and technical assistance necessary to employ the pen register[s] unobtrusively," including "leasing"
13

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 14 of 29
the relevant telephone lines to the government. United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 161-162 (internal quotations and citations omitted). The telephone company provided the government with all of the information it needed to install the two pen registers itself, but rather than leasing the necessary telephone lines or lending technical assistance, the telephone company advised the government how it could install the pen registers without the telephone company's involvement. 5 United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 163. The government attempted to follow the telephone company's instruction, but after several unsuccessful attempts, it concluded the telephone company -- the only telephone company servicing the area in 1976 -- would need to provide assistance, or it would be impossible for the surveillance authorized by the District Court to be conducted. United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 163.
The telephone company moved to vacate the portion of the District Court's Order directing it to "furnish facilities and technical assistance." United States v. New York Tel. Co.,
5 The telephone company instructed the government to "string cables" from the apartment where the two subject telephones were located "to another location where pen registers could be installed." United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 163.
14

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 15 of 29
supra, 434 U.S. at 163. The District Court denied the motion, concluding, in part, that the All Writs Act authorized that portion of the Order. United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 163.
The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's Order. The Court considered three factors in determining whether issuance of the District Court's Order was "necessary or appropriate," within the meaning of the All Writs Act: (1) whether the requested writ "unreasonabl [y] burdens" the writs' subject; (2) whether the requested writ is "necessary" or "essential to the fulfillment of the purpose" for which a previous order has been issued and (3) whether the writs' subject is a "third party so far removed from the underlying controversy that its assistance could not be permissibly compelled." United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 174-178; accord In re Apple, Inc., No. 15-MC-1902 (JO), 2016 WL 783565 at *6-7 (June 9, 2017 E. D.N. Y.)
The Supreme Court concluded that the All Writs Act authorized the District Court, in its discretion, to direct the telephone company to provide assistance to the government, finding that the writ was sufficiently "necessary or appropriate." United States v. New York Tel. Co.,supra, 434 U.S. at 177.
15

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 16 of 29

B. Application of the Foregoing Principles

1. Jurisdiction

The DOE's only jurisdictional argument is that plain-

tiffs are attempting to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction

by "evading the necessity of prosecuting a separate action

against the DOE," (DOE's Memorandum of Law in Opposition of

Plaintiffs' Motion to Join, dated March 20, 2017 (D.I. 194) ("DOE

Mem. of Law"), at 6). The DOE's argument ignores the controlling

precedents that expressly permit courts to issue orders under the

All Writs Act to join non-parties to an existing action, when

necessary or appropriate, in order to enforce an existing order.

See United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 174

("The power conferred by the [All Writs] Act extends, under

appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to

the original action

are in a position to frustrate the

implementation of a court order or the proper administration of

justice."); accord Dunn v. New York State Dep't of Labor, supra,

594 F. Supp. at 239 (holding that District Court was authorized

under the All Writs Act to join the United States Secretary of

Labor, a non-party to the action, and require the Secretary to

formulate a remedial plan with defendants in order to fulfill the

16

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 17 of 29
obligations of the existing remedial order). Plaintiffs commenced this action alleging a violation
of the ADA, a federal statute. Thus, the Court unquestionably has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331, and, therefore, has jurisdiction to issue the requested Order.
2. Necessary or Appropriate
All the factors discussed in United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 174-178, weigh against plaintiffs' request for relief.
The first factor, reasonableness of the burden imposed, weighs strongly in favor of the DOE. Plaintiffs argue that the potential burden imposed by its requested writ is not unreasonable because it would actually "save the City money" by eliminating the need to make temporary modifications, every election day (Pls. Reply Mem. of Law at 4). Plaintiffs assert that the LongForm Reports offer "specific recommendations for permanent solutions," and the Short-Form Reports "rate[] almost all of [those] permanent solutions reasonable," (Pls. Mem. of Law at 4 n. 5, 17). Thus, plaintiffs reason, the "difficult task of figuring out how to permanently ensure the accessibility of these
17

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 18 of 29
public polling sites" is complete (Pls. Mem. of Law at 17). Moreover, plaintiffs contend, without citation, that the DOE has an "independent duty under the ADA to make its schools accessible to the public," everyday, and not only for purposes relating to the education of children (Pls. Mem. at 17). Thus, plaintiffs argue, burdensomeness should be measured in light of that obligation.
The DOE argues that the remedy which plaintiffs seek is "entirely inconsistent" with the Remedial Orders, because it would impose upon the DOE an obligation to implement "permanent measures" to assist defendants in meeting their duty to make polling sites accessible "a few times per year," (DOE Mem. of Law at 8-10). Specifically, the DOE contends that plaintiffs are "attempting to change the intrinsic nature of the [R]emedial [O]rder," which "is addressed to [the] BOE only and places the burden on BOE alone," by using the All Writs Act "to expand the injunction to a non-party, without provid[ing] the process due, and imposing on DOE a new set of duties which the DOE never had." (DOE Mem. of Law at 20).
In United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 174, the Supreme Court concluded that the District Court's Order's use of the All Writs Act did not burden the telephone company because: (1) the government had agreed to "fully reim-
18

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 19 of 29
burse" the telephone company "at prevailing rates"; (2) compli-
ance with the Order required minimal effort by the telephone
company and (3) compliance would not disrupt the telephone
company's "ordinary business." The same cannot be said of the order plaintiffs seek.
Plaintiffs do not offer to reimburse the DOE for the cost of the alterations they seek. Rather, plaintiffs ask that the DOE "bear at least part of the cost," because the DOE "will benefit from the accessibility solutions every day and its budget dwarfs that of the BOE," (Pls. Reply Mem. Of Law at 8); plaintiffs do not
even suggest who should bear the balance of the cost. Given the number of schools currently serving as polling places -- ETA has
surveyed 442 active polling sites located at public schools and
is only 63%-74% finished with its work -- the cost of permanent alterations to make the schools accessible will, at the very least, be tens of millions of dollars. 6
6 Plaintiffs do not state the total estimated cost of implementing all permanent modifications recommended by ETA in at least 430 public schools. The only information plaintiffs provide with respect to cost is found in the P.S. 165 Long-Form Report, which estimates that the cost of permanent modifications at that location would be $10,833.20 (P.S. 165 Long-Form Report at 46). Plaintiffs do not assert, and I will not assume, that the cost of permanent modifications at P.S. 165 is representative of how much modifications would cost at other locations. Even if it were, implementing permanent modifications that cost $10,833.20 at 430 schools would cost $4,658,276.00 (P.S. 165
(continued ... ) 19

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 20 of 29
Considering the magnitude of the potential cost of permanent modifications, the number of schools at which permanent changes would need to be made and the number of DOE employees who would need to be trained, the relief plaintiffs seek will surely take more than "minimal effort." Cf. United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 175 (approving Order directed to non-party because "it required minimal effort" to comply with the Order) .
Likewise, plaintiffs have failed to show that the requested Order would not disrupt the DOE's normal business. The coordination and resources for the relief sought would almost certainly cost the DOE a substantial amount of time, money and effort, the precise amount of which is unknown. Moreover, it would be fundamentally unfair to order the DOE to spend millions of dollars on the basis of plaintiffs' counsel's dogmatic and unsupported statement that permanent modifications are the most economically efficient remedy in the long-run, especially considering that the DOE has never had a chance to take discovery or challenge these assertions.
The second factor, necessity, also tips heavily in favor of the DOE.
6 ( •.• continued) Long-Form Report at 46).
20

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 21 of 29
Plaintiffs argue that, because the DOE controls the majority of buildings in which polling sites are located, it is the only entity that is capable of making "necessary changes or modifications" at "such a high proportion of . . polling sites" under New York Election Law Section 4-104(1-b). Plaintiffs assert that the DOE controls the resources necessary for the Remedial Orders to be effectuated. According to the plaintiffs, the DOE has a much larger budget than the BOE, and controls the buildings where roughly half of all polling sites are located (Pls. Mem. of Law at 14). Moreover, plaintiffs claim that DOE public schools "are the only realistic option for providing poll sites throughout the City at a reasonable cost to taxpayers," (Pls. Mem. of Law at 14) . 7 Plaintiffs also contend that unless the DOE is joined to this action, the only recourse defendants will have against DOE employees who interfere with their obligations under the Remedial Orders is to call the police (Pl. Mem. of Law at 15). Thus, plaintiffs claim that a writ joining the DOE as a defendant to this action is necessary, under the All Writs Act.
7 Plaintiffs only citation in support of this point is to New York Election Law Section 4-104(3), which requires the BOE to designate tax exempt buildings "whenever possible", and expressly prohibits only the DOE from cancelling the BOE's polling site designations.
21

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 22 of 29
The DOE argues that plaintiffs have not sufficiently shown necessity, but rather "claim it as a conclusion and by anecdote," (DOE Mem. of Law at 14). The DOE asserts that it "is not necessary to this case because the BOE can make the vast majority of surveyed sites accessible with, at most, temporary measures and a reduction in voters." (DOE Mem. of Law at 15). Furthermore, the DOE reasons, the BOE's authority under New York Election Law Section 4-104(1-b) to select alternative sites undermines plaintiffs' claims of necessity (DOE Mem. of Law at 15) .
Each of the cases cited to plaintiffs in which a federal court used its authority under the All Writs Act to join a non-party to an existing action involved a high degree of necessity. United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 175, was decided at a time when there was a single telephone company in the relevant area; without the assistance of that company, the government would have been unable to operate the pen registers. In Dunn v. N.Y. State Dep't of Labor, supra, 594 F. Supp. at 239-242, the Honorable Kevin T. Duffy, United States District Judge (retired), concluded that the New York Department of Labor's inability to comply with a nearly five-year-old remedial order directing it to provide "prompt administrative hearings on appeals from denials of unemployment benefits," was
22

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 23 of 29
due entirely to a lack of funding from and change of policy at the United States Department of Labor, which was responsible for reimbursing the entire cost of the New York State Unemployment Insurance program. Accordingly, Judge Duffy issued an Order joining the United States Secretary of Labor to the action "for purposes of participat[ing] in the formulation of a remedial plan." Dunn v. N.Y. State Dep't of Labor, supra, 594 F. Supp. at 239-242.
There is no similar element of necessity here. Though New York Election Law Section 4-104(8) states that the BOE "shall
. designate" public buildings, including public schools, as polling sites "wherever possible," the BOE is not required to do so if such facilities are unsuitable. And although the DOE is the only owner or lessee of public buildings that is prohibited from cancelling a BOE designation of a polling site under New York Election Law Section 4-104(3), that does not require the BOE to use DOE buildings. Cf. Dunn v. N.Y. State Dep't of Labor, 594 F. Supp. at 242. Rather, it only makes the DOE-controlled buildings a convenient option for a polling site location.
Plaintiffs make the bold assertion that it is often impossible for the BOE to find alternative polling sites, but
23

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 24 of 29
provide little evidence to support this point. 8 Even if this
were true, ETA has found that defendants can comply with the
Remedial Orders by simply implementing temporary modifications at
94.3% of the 442 active polling sites surveyed that are located
at public schools, 9 and the BOE has recorded incidents relating
to accessibility on election days at only a handful of polling
sites located at public schools, belying plaintiffs' assertion of
necessity.
The third factor, the closeness of the writs' subject
to the underlying controversy, also weighs in the DOE's favor.
Plaintiffs argue that, "[u]nder New York law, the DOE
is intimately involved in poll[ing] site accessibility," (Pls.
Mem. of Law at 16). For instance, plaintiffs note that New York
Election Law Section 4-104(1-b) requires that "[a]ny polling
8 Plaintiffs note that the BOE has faced difficulty in relocating its polling site at a single public school, P.S. 153, and cite a 2004 decision of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, which casts doubt on the number of alternative polling sites in Westchester County. See Westchester Disabled On the Move, Inc. v. Cty. of Westchester, 346 F. Supp. 2d 473, 480 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (Robinson, D.J). However, plaintiffs' contention is that there are no viable alternatives to public schools in New York City, not Westchester County.
9 The BOE is also required to implement temporary changes and reductions in voters at 17 additional polling sites. When those changes are factored in, the percentage of polling sites located at public schools that will be in compliance with the Remedial Orders jumps to 97.2%.
24

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 25 of 29

place deemed not to meet the existing accessibility standards

must make necessary changes and/or modifications, or be moved to

a verified accessible polling place within six months," and that

New York Election Law Section 4-104(3-d) requires the person or

entity in control of a building where a polling site is located

to "install, remove, store, and safeguard each ramp, or ramp and

platform, at such times and dates as" is required by the BOE.

Accordingly, plaintiffs argue that "the DOE already has the[]

dut[y] to remedy poll sites under New York Law," and therefore

"has no legitimate interest in not assisting [the BOE in imple-

menting] the Court's Remedial Order," (Pls. Mero. of Law at 16)

The DOE contends that the BOE and the DOE are "not

[the] same or even related entities," (DOE Mem. of Law at 7).

The DOE argues that it is the BOE's duty to select polling sites

that are accessible, not the DOE's. The DOE claims that its only

responsibility relating to making polling sites accessible on

election day is to ''make available parts of the building that are

already accessible

not to make the building accessible for

voters," (DOE Mero. of Law at 8). Moreover, the DOE contends that

the relief sought by plaintiffs would "require the DOE to take

particular steps at schools used for voting, putting voters first

instead of children," (DOE Mero. of Law at 8)

In United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S.

25

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 26 of 29
at 174, the Supreme Court concluded that the telephone company was sufficiently close to the underlying controversy -- the use of the telephone company's wires and facilities by suspected criminals and the District Court's Order authorizing the government to install and use pen registers -- because: (1) "there was probable cause to believe" that the telephone company's telephone lines "were being employed to facilitate a criminal enterprise on a continuing basis," and (2) the telephone company was "a highly regulated public utility with a duty to serve the public," and thus had no "substantial interest in not providing assistance."
Plaintiffs' argument that the DOE is entwined with the BOE's efforts to make polling sites located at public schools accessible on election days is not without merit. Both DOE and BOE employees occupy public schools where polling sites are located on election days, putting DOE employees in the unique position of being able to frustrate BOE employees' efforts to ensure polling sites comply with the requirements of the Remedial Orders. However, unlike the telephone company in United States v. New York Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 174, the DOE is not similarly engaged in the business or activity that the Remedial Orders address. The DOE has no duty to manage or oversee elections, nor does it have any input into the designation of polling sites. None of the provisions cited by plaintiffs require the
26

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 27 of 29

DOE, or any other owner or lessee of a public building where a

polling site is designated, to ensure the accessibility of the

BOE's polling sites, except for New York Election Law Section 4-

104 (3-d), which simply demands that owners and lessees install

certain equipment when and where the BOE directs them to.

Furthermore, it cannot be said that the DOE has no "substantial

interest in not providing assistance." United States v. New York

Tel. Co., supra, 434 U.S. at 174. The DOE's compliance with the

Remedial Orders would divert millions of dollars the DOE had

earmarked for other purposes, including educating the more than

one million children who attend DOE schools.

There can be no serious argument that our government

has an obligation to protect and ensure every citizen's right to

vote, regardless of the individual's physical condition. And on

the proper record, the relief plaintiffs seek against the DOE may

be appropriate. The DOE's right to be heard is of equal signifi-

cance. Plaintiffs' motion seeks to require the DOE to expend

millions of taxpayer dollars to implement remedies that this

Court has never even ordered

all without the DOE having the

opportunity even to address the alterations suggested by an

expert that it had no role in choosing. More complete relief

could, no doubt, have been achieved had the DOE been made a party

at the inception of this action. That oversight cannot, however,

27

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 28 of 29
be remedied by the simple expedient of binding the DOE to the Remedial Orders without any opportunity to participate in discovery and be heard on the merits of the action and the appropriate form of relief.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend that plaintiffs' motion requesting an Order pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, joining the DOE, and directing the DOE to permanently resolve accessibility barriers at certain public schools and to take steps to ensure its employees do not frustrate defendants' implementation of the Remedial Orders (D.I. 182), be denied in all respects.
V. OBJECTIONS
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b) (1) (c) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Such objections (and responses thereto) shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court with courtesy copies delivered to the Chambers of the Honorable Deborah A. Batts, United States District Judge, Room 2510, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, and to the
28

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 199 Filed 10/11/17 Page 29 of 29
Chambers of the undersigned, 500 Pearl Street, Room 1670, New York, New York 10007. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Batts. FAILURE TO OBJECT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 57-59 (2d Cir. 1988); McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237-238 (2d Cir. 1983). Dated: New York, New York
October 11, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
Copies transmitted to: All Counsel
29

 
 Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 211 Filed 11/27/19
California Office 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 Tel: (510) 665-8644 Fax: (510) 665-8511 www.dralegal.org

Page 1 of 4
New York Office 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10017-5621 Tel: (212) 644-8644 Fax: (212) 644-8636 www.dralegal.org

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Natalie Aliga Wells Fargo Government & Community Relations Group
Nana A. Antwi-Ansorge Attorney
Daniel L. Brown Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
Chris Coleman First Republic Bank
Linda Dardarian Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho
Ernest Galvan Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP
Edward Gildea FisherBroyles, LLP
Melissa “echo” Greenlee deaffriendly.com
Tami Hamalian Starbucks Coffee Company
Srin Madipalli Airbnb
Daniel S. Mason Furth Salem Mason & Li LLP
Allison May Retired Attorney
Steven P. Ragland Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
Cristina Rubke Shartsis Friese LLP
Scott Smigel Arcana Corporation
Michael P. Stanley Attorney
ATTORNEYS
Torie Atkinson Staff Attorney
Sean Betouliere Staff Attorney
Rosa Lee Bichell Catalyst Fellow
Christina Brandt-Young Managing Attorney
Michelle Caiola Managing Director, Litigation
Michelle Iorio Staff Attorney
Jelena Kolic Staff Attorney
Andrea Kozak-Oxnard Staff Attorney
Ife Kubler-Agyemang Legal Fellow
Seth Packrone Staff Attorney
Monica Porter Staff Attorney
Melissa Riess Staff Attorney
Rebecca Rodgers Staff Attorney
Stuart Seaborn Managing Director, Litigation
Emily Seelenfreund Staff Attorney
Rebecca Serbin Staff Attorney
Meredith J. Weaver Staff Attorney
Rebecca Williford Managing Attorney
Thomas Zito Supervising Attorney

November 27, 2019

Via ECF

The Honorable Deborah A. Batts United States District Judge Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Room 2510 New York, NY 10007-1312

Re: United Spinal Association et al. v. Board of Elections in the City of New York et al., Case No. 10-cv-5653 (DAB) (HBP): Final Progress Letter

Dear Judge Batts:

Plaintiffs write pursuant to the Court’s January 4, 2017 order (ECF No. 181) to update the Court on the New York City Board of Election’s (“BOE”) compliance with the Court’s remedial order (October 18, 2012 Order, ECF No. 119; modified at October 13, 2013 Order, ECF No. 130) (“the Remedial Order”) and to recommend that the Court permit the Remedial Order to expire as scheduled on December 31, 2019.

1. When Plaintiffs Filed This Lawsuit in 2010, Significant and Pervasive Poll Site Barriers Prevented Voters with Disabilities From Voting Privately and Independently
When Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in 2010, poll workers received little to no accessibility training; ramps were missing, too steep, or made of dangerous materials such as crumbling plywood; and signage was missing or inaccurate. See Plaintiffs’ Complaint, July 26, 2010, ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 52-55, 72-78; see also Disabled in Action v. Bd. of Elections, 752 F.3d 189, 192-93, 199-200 (2d Cir. 2014). As a result, voters with disabilities experienced significant difficulty in accessing the polls to cast their votes. As detailed in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, at least one voter was unable to enter his poll site with his scooter due to stairs at the front entrance, and had to improvise a ramp with pieces of plywood that broke under the weight of his scooter. See Plaintiffs’ Complaint ¶¶ 73-75. He ultimately entered his poll site only after bystanders lifted him up the stairs, and then had to exit the polling place via another improvised ramp made from a folding table. Id. ¶¶ 73-78. Another voter was unable to get up the steps to his polling place and was forced to vote on the sidewalk outside, with no guarantee that his vote would even be counted. Id. ¶¶ 60-64. Barriers persisted throughout the first several years of monitoring, including temporary ramps that were never delivered or delivered but not set up. See

NovemCabseer 217:1, 02-0c1v9-05653-DAB-HBP Document 211 Filed 11/27/19 Page 2 of 4
Page 2
Plaintiffs’ Letter to the Court, March 4, 2016, ECF No. 161 at 4-5; Plaintiffs’ Letter to the Court, December 1, 2016, ECF No. 174 at 3-4. Even as late as November 2016, a lip at the door prevented one voter from getting into her poll site independently, and she had to ask others to lift her wheelchair over the lip to get into her poll site. Declaration of Cheri Rosen, Jan. 19, 2017, ECF No. 186 ¶¶ 4-8. This Court found, and the Second Circuit agreed, that these conditions denied New Yorkers with disabilities meaningful access to the BOE’s election program and violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See August 8, 2012 Order, ECF No. 105 at 30; Disabled in Action, 752 F.3d at 202.
2. Since 2010, the BOE Has Significantly Improved Poll Site Accessibility
In the seven years since the Court issued its Remedial Order, the BOE has made significant progress to ensure the physical accessibility of polling places throughout New York City. Plaintiffs have observed a marked decrease in both the number and severity of accessibility-related election day complaints, and a corresponding increase in the BOE’s day-of responsiveness to these complaints. Although the BOE continues to face certain challenges—many of them significant, as set forth below, including the inaccessibility of the majority of New York City public schools—Plaintiffs believe that the BOE should move forward without Plaintiffs’ and the Court’s continued oversight.
a. The BOE Has Increased its Internal Capacity to Address Accessibility Concerns Through Hiring and Training
As directed by the Court, the BOE has trained its surveyors and poll workers in poll-site accessibility, has utilized election-day accessibility monitors, and has analyzed complaints from those monitors and the public to identify and solve problems for future elections. See October 18, 2012 Order, ECF No. 119 ¶¶ 3, 7, 17; June 10, 2016 Order, ECF No. 167. As a result of Plaintiffs’ monitoring of the Remedial Order, the BOE has also hired two full-time accessibility coordinators and arranged intensive trainings for its external ramp vendors. See BOE’s Letter to the Court, Dec. 2, 2019, filed concurrently. Additionally, the BOE has worked with the Court-appointed expert, Evan Terry Associates, LLC (“ETA”) to produce a series of accessibility-related poll worker training videos1 and analyze the BOE’s election-day performance, and has contracted with multiple third-party experts to train the BOE’s own poll site worker trainers on accessibility issues. Consequently, Plaintiffs have observed a decrease in the number and severity of complaints from voters with disabilities on election days. This suggests that the BOE has indeed increased its capacity to address these issues, which was the goal of the Remedial Order.
b. ETA is on Track to Develop an Accessibility Plan for Every Active Poll Site by the End of the Year
The Remedial Order also directed the BOE, in conjunction with ETA, to survey and develop an election-day accessibility plan for every poll site it uses. See October 13, 2013 Order, ECF No. 130 ¶¶ 8-11. Currently, all but one of the nearly 1,300 active
1 ADA Poll Worker Training Videos, BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, https://www.vote.nyc.ny.us/html/workers/adapollworkertraining.shtml.

NovemCabseer 217:1, 02-0c1v9-05653-DAB-HBP Document 211 Filed 11/27/19 Page 3 of 4
Page 3
poll sites in New York City are now on track to have a completed survey and plan.2 To date, ETA has produced final reports for 1249 out of 1269 active poll sites. The BOE has assured Plaintiffs that 100% of active poll sites will have final ETA reports by the end of the current monitoring period, December 31, 2019, and has agreed to provide final confirmation of completion before the end of the year.
The BOE has implemented the temporary remedies in each poll site plan on a rolling basis as they have become available since 2015. As noted above, Plaintiffs have observed that the BOE’s capacity for implementing these plans has increased over time, as problems are worked out and snags are incorporated into plans for the next election. Plaintiffs also note that the BOE’s relationship with the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) has improved, such that there are fewer significant problems like school principals refusing to allow poll workers to use assigned rooms. See Plaintiffs’ Letter to the Court, Aug. 24, 2015, ECF No. 156 at 30. All of these factors have contributed to a decrease in the number and severity of complaints from voters with disabilities on election days.
3. The BOE Continues to Face Poll-Site Accessibility Challenges, Including Some that are Beyond the Scope of This Order
However, the BOE continues to face challenges in creating poll-site accessibility on election days. Some poll site coordinators continue to resist utilizing the accessible floor plans, despite routine training (and election-day admonition) to the contrary. The signage that the BOE uses to indicate accessible paths is still imperfect, particularly during rain and wind, although it has gradually improved through measures such as the creation of a one-page signage guide distributed to poll workers at every poll site and the use of reusable zip ties to post the signs more securely. The BOE will need to continue to work on these problems.
Some of the challenges that the BOE faces go beyond the scope of this remedial order yet still impact poll site accessibility. For example, the underlying inaccessibility of most DOE schools forces the BOE to spend significant time and resources on temporary, election-day remedies. The majority of active poll sites that are located in DOE and New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”) facilities would be greatly improved by the provision of permanent accessibility solutions—particularly ramps, handrails, and signage—rather than relying on the BOE’s temporary solutions, which are often more costly and burdensome and only provide access to buildings on election days. Although ETA has identified such permanent solutions for every site pursuant to the Remedial Order (October 13, 2013 Order, ECF No. 130 ¶ 13), those entities have not engaged in any systemic effort to implement those solutions. This resistance to permanent solutions leaves voters with temporary solutions—currently utilized in more than 95% of active poll sites—that are rarely as sturdy or perfectly finished as permanent solutions would be, and require the BOE to continually set up and then take away accessible features from buildings that should be accessible every day.
2 ETA found that one active poll site, Fairview Owners Corp. in Queens, is inaccessible, even with temporary accessibility measures. The BOE is currently exploring its options for this site, including working with the property owner to install permanent accessibility solutions or relocating election districts. Plaintiffs request that the BOE include the updated status of Fairview Owners Corp in its end-of-year letter to the Court confirming the completion of all final poll site surveys.

NovemCabseer 217:1, 02-0c1v9-05653-DAB-HBP Document 211 Filed 11/27/19 Page 4 of 4
Page 4
Additionally, the DOE often still fails to fully cooperate with the BOE by refusing to clear out furniture from poll rooms or unlock accessible entrances. See Exhibit A, Excerpts from the BOE’s Election Incident Reports, Feb. 26, 2019. Further, the election day poll worker salaries set by the City of New York are too low to attract sufficient candidates and prevent attrition, leading to poll worker shortages on election days.
Although these problems impact the ability of New Yorkers with disabilities to vote, their solutions lie outside the scope of the Remedial Order and will need to be resolved independently thereof.
4. Conclusion
Despite these challenges, the BOE has improved poll site accessibility over the past seven years of monitoring. Since 2017, Plaintiffs have not been informed of any voter being unable to access a poll site in ways that were common before the Remedial Order was made. While glitches remain and poll sites in New York City still face accessibility challenges—and will continue to do so unless the DOE commits to remedying the systemic inaccessibility of its public schools—it is time to find out whether the BOE’s seven years of cultural and workflow shifts around accessibility will be maintained without continued Court oversight.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully recommend that this Court allow the Remedial Order to expire on December 31, 2019, pending confirmation by the BOE to the parties and the Court that the BOE and ETA have finalized reports for all active poll sites by that date.
Respectfully,
Christina Brandt-Young Disability Rights Advocates Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBP Document 211-1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT A

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK PRINTED AS OF: 4/12/2019 1:38:09PM

City HASNO

Site Name

Special Election
Queens 10735 PS 161-Arthur Ashe School

Queens 10735 PS 161-Arthur Ashe School

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBPElDecotciounmInecnitd2en1t1s-1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 2 of 4
Special Election Public Advocate - 02/26/2019

TENTATIVE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Address 101-33 124 Street 101-33 124 Street

Zip Code

Complaint Source

Complaint Comment

Complaint Solution

Borough Solution

11419

Queens

Accessibility Complaint Log

The Accessible (back) door had alarms that were not turned off, making the door inaccessible as it had to remain shut.

Coordinator changed directional signage to direct all voters to the main entrance. BOE was notified of DOE issue.

02/26/2019
BOE Poll Site Department will remind school that designated entrances must be unlocked with alarm turned off in future elections.

11419

ADA Checklist

No Accessibility Comment Reported

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Queens 10735 PS 161-Arthur Ashe School

101-33 124 Street

11419

Coordinator's Journal No Accessibility Comment Reported

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Queens

10736

Young Womens Leadership School-Queens

Queens

10736

Young Womens Leadership School-Queens

Queens

10736

Young Womens Leadership School-Queens

150-91 87 Road 150-91 87 Road 150-91 87 Road

11432

Accessibility Complaint Not Yet Received Log

Not Yet Received

11432

ADA Checklist

No Accessibility Comment Reported

Not Applicable

11432

Coordinator's Journal No Accessibility Comment Reported

Not Applicable

Not Yet Received Not Applicable Not Applicable

Friday, April 12, 2019

Page 20 of 148

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK PRINTED AS OF: 4/12/2019 1:38:09PM

City HASNO

Site Name

Special Election Queens Q0100 PS 130

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBPElDecotciounmInecnitd2en1t1s-1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 3 of 4
Special Election Public Advocate - 02/26/2019

TENTATIVE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Address 200-01 42 Avenue

Zip Code

Complaint Source

Complaint Comment

11361

Queens

Accessibility Complaint No Accessibility Comment

Log

Reported

Complaint Solution Not Applicable

Borough Solution

Not Applicable

02/26/2019

Queens Q0100 PS 130

200-01 42 Avenue

11361

ADA Checklist

No Accessibility Comment Reported

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Queens Q0100 PS 130

200-01 42 Avenue

Queens Q0102 PS 162-John Golden

201-02 53 Avenue

Queens Q0102 PS 162-John Golden

201-02 53 Avenue

Queens Q0102 PS 162-John Golden

201-02 53 Avenue

Friday, April 12, 2019

11361

Coordinator's Journal

ADA privacy booths had to be adjusted due to floor plan not showing 2 6' Table

This incident has been reported to BOE.

BOE will send surveyors to account for addition objects is the room and revise the floor plan if necessary prior to the upcoming election.

11364

Accessibility Complaint Lights on a privacy booth is

Log

diming out.

Coordinator moved the booth with the poor light and sated "plenty of other booths"

BOE will ensure the batteries to be changed and light to be tested prior to the upcoming election.

11364 11364

ADA Checklist

Lunch room monitors moved desks and carts that blocks ADA Privacy booth several times.

The coordinator had to clear them up several times.

BOE Poll Site Department will contact the principal at this facility and remind them of ADA and election requirements.

Coordinator's Journal

The accessibility door locks automatically. A permanent doorbell should be installed because BOE's doorbell is not loud enough when blower/HVAC is turn on.

This incident has been reported to BOE.

BOE Poll Site Dep't will remind school that school to ensure the access to the designated voting area for future elections as explicitly informed. Accessibility clerk will be reminded to keep door bell receiver close by the door.

Page 79 of 148

BOARD OF ELECTIONS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK PRINTED AS OF: 4/12/2019 1:38:09PM

City HASNO

Site Name

Special Election Queens Q0119 PS 188-Kingsburry

Case 1:10-cv-05653-DAB-HBPElDecotciounmInecnitd2en1t1s-1 Filed 11/27/19 Page 4 of 4
Special Election Public Advocate - 02/26/2019

TENTATIVE SUBJECT TO CHANGE

Address 218-12 Hartland Avenue

Zip Code

Complaint Source

Complaint Comment

11364

Queens

Accessibility Complaint No Accessibility Comment

Log

Reported

Complaint Solution Not Applicable

Borough Solution

Not Applicable

02/26/2019

Queens Q0119 PS 188-Kingsburry

218-12 Hartland Avenue

11364

ADA Checklist

No Accessibility Comment Reported

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Queens Q0119 PS 188-Kingsburry

218-12 Hartland Avenue

11364

Coordinator's Journal No Accessibility Comment Reported

Not Applicable

Not Applicable

Queens Q0121 PS 84-Steinway

22-45 41 Street

Queens Q0121 PS 84-Steinway

22-45 41 Street

11105

Accessibility Complaint Log

1. Tables, chairs, toys, etc. obstructed pathway. 2. Cafeteria tables blocked BMD.

11105

ADA Checklist

No Accessibility Comment Reported

Coordinator removed all obstruction from pathway.
Not Applicable

BOE Poll Site Department will remind the school to ensure the designated voting area for future elections as explicitly informed prior to the upcoming election.
Not Applicable

Queens Q0121 PS 84-Steinway

22-45 41 Street

Friday, April 12, 2019

11105

Coordinator's Journal

1. Cafeteria tables blocked BMD. An uncooperative custodian asked, "well what do you want me to do with them", after the coordinator asked them to remove them. 2. Missing information tables.

1. Privacy booths were moved into its proper space. ED/AD tables were in a side room providing more space for privacy booths.

BOE Poll Site Department will remind the school to ensure the designated voting area for future elections as explicitly informed prior to the upcoming election.

Page 85 of 148

 
 CLOSED,CASREF,ECF
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:10−cv−05653−DAB−HBP

United Spinal Association et al v. Board of Elections in the City of New York et al Assigned to: Judge Deborah A. Batts Referred to: Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman Cause: 42:12131 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/26/2010 Date Terminated: 03/10/2015 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

United Spinal Association a nonprofit organization

represented by Julia Miriam Pinover Disabilities Right Advocates 40 Worth Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 (212) 644−8644 Fax: (212) 644−8636 Email: jpinover@dralegal.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea Moody Kozak−Oxnard Disability Rights Advocates 655 Third Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 212−644−8644 Email: akozakoxnard@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christina Louise Brandt−Young Disability Rights Advocates 655 Third Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 212−644−8644 Fax: 212−644−8636 Email: cbrandt−young@dralegal.org TERMINATED: 07/25/2018

Christine Hsiao−Ting Chuang Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street Berkeley, CA 94704 (510)−665−8644 Fax: (510)−665−8511 Email: cchuang@dralegal.org TERMINATED: 07/17/2015

Kevin Todd Mintzer Kevin Mintzer, P.C. 1350 Broadway, Suite 1400 New York, NY 10018 (646) 843−8180 Fax: (646)478−9768 Email: km@mintzerfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mariann Meier Wang Cuti Hecker Wang, LLP (nyc) 305 Broadway, Suite 607 New York, NY 10007

Plaintiff
Disabled in Action a nonprofit organization

212−620−2603 Fax: 212−620−2613 Email: mwang@chwllp.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Elsberry Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, 4th floor Berkley, CA 94704 (510)−665−8644 Fax: (510)−665−8511 Email: relsberry@dralegal.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Emmanuel Packrone Disability Rights Advocates 655 Third Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 644−8644 Fax: 212−644−8636 Email: spackrone@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sid Wolinsky Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, 4th floor Berkley, CA 94704 (510)−665−8644 Fax: (510)−665−8511 Email: swolinsky@dralegal.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart John Seaborn Disabilities Right Advocates (CA) 2001 Center Street, 4th Floor Berkely, CA 94704 (510) 665−8644 Fax: (510)−665−8511 Email: sseaborn@dralegal.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia Miriam Pinover (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea Moody Kozak−Oxnard (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Louise Brandt−Young (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/25/2018
Christine Hsiao−Ting Chuang (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/17/2015
Kevin Todd Mintzer

V. Defendant Board of Elections in the City of New York
Defendant Julia Dent in her official capacity as President of the Board of Elections in the City of New York Miscellaneous New York City Department of Education
Date Filed # Docket Text

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mariann Meier Wang (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald Elsberry (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Seth Emmanuel Packrone (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sid Wolinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stuart John Seaborn (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen Edward Kitzinger New York City Law Depart. Office of the Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 212−788−0849 Fax: 212−788−8877 Email: SKitzing@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Stephen Edward Kitzinger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Alan Maer Schlesinger Corporation Counsel Office City of New York 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 356−2628 Fax: (212) 788−0940 Email: aschlesi@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

01/05/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/26/2010 07/28/2010
08/11/2010
08/12/2010 08/12/2010
08/13/2010 08/17/2010 08/19/2010 08/24/2010
08/26/2010 09/02/2010 09/07/2010 09/15/2010

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on October 27, 2010 at 11:12 a.m. before Judge Deborah A. Batts. (js) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
1 COMPLAINT against Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 910469)Document filed by United Spinal Association, Disabled in Action.(ama) (ama). (Entered: 07/27/2010)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (ama) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman is so designated. (ama) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
Case Designated ECF. (ama) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
2 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(ama) (ama). (Entered: 07/27/2010)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E−MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney Julia Miriam Pinover for noncompliance with Section (14.3) of the S.D.N.Y. Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instructions. E−MAIL the PDF for Document 1 Complaint, 2 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement to: case_openings@nysd.uscourts.gov. (rdz) (Entered: 07/28/2010)
3 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Board of Elections in the City of New York served on 8/11/2010, answer due 9/1/2010. Service was accepted by Sylvia Ancram. Document filed by United Spinal Association; Disabled in Action. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/11/2010)
4 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Service was accepted by Sylvia Ancram. Document filed by United Spinal Association, Disabled in Action. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/12/2010)
5 FILING ERROR − ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON−ECF DOCUMENT − FIRST MOTION for Limited Admission of Sid Wolinsky (Pro Hac Vice). Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 8/16/2010 (lb). (Entered: 08/12/2010)
6 MOTION for Sid Wolinsky to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(mbe) (Entered: 08/16/2010)
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 08/13/2010, Receipt Number 911862. (jd) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
7 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Stephen Edward Kitzinger on behalf of Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 08/19/2010)
8 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Stephen Kitzinger, dated 8/20/10 re: Counsel to defendants request a 30−day extension of time until September 27, 2010 to respond to the complaint. ENDORSEMENT: Granted. Board of Elections in the City of New York answer due 9/27/2010; Julia Dent answer due 9/27/2010. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 8/24/10) (djc) Modified on 8/27/2010 (djc). (Entered: 08/25/2010)
9 MOTION for Ronald Elsberry to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(mbe) (Entered: 08/30/2010)
10 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION granting 9 Motion for Ronald Elsberry to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 9/2/2010) (tro) (Entered: 09/02/2010)
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 9 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 08/26/2010, Receipt Number 913053. (jd) (Entered: 09/07/2010)
11 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION granting 6 Motion for Sid Wolinsky to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Counsel shall forward the pro hac vice fee to the Clerk of Court. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 9/15/10) (djc) (Entered: 09/15/2010)

09/28/2010
09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010

12 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. Defendants Board of Elections in the City of NY and Julie Dent, in her official capacity as its President shall show cause as to why pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter an order pending final resolution of this action. Show Cause Hearing set for 10/20/2010 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 24B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Deborah A. Batts. Sufficient cause having been shown, service of this Order to Show Cause, together with the papers on which it was granted, will be deemed good and sufficient service if made by personal delivery on counsel for Defendants, on or before 4:00 p.m. on September 29, 2010; Any papers in opposition to the application for preliminary injunctive relief shall be served on Plaintiffs' counsel and on this Court on or before 4:00 p.m. on October 12, 2010; (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 9/28/10) (djc) (Entered: 09/29/2010)
13 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
14 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Gisell Claudio in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
15 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Henry Lee in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
16 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Linda Ostreicher in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
17 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Rima McCoy in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
18 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Michael Collins in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
19 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Pat Bianchi in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
20 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Philip Dyson in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
21 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Celine Perez in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
22 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − AFFIDAVIT of Julia Pinover in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
23 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − SECOND MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document

09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010 09/29/2010
09/29/2010
10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010

filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
24 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Jen Halbert in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
25 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Rima McCoy in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
26 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Andrew D. Schwarz in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
27 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Michael Waterstone in Support re: 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/1/2010 (db). (Entered: 09/29/2010)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − EVENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Julia Miriam Pinover to RE−FILE Document 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Use the event type Memorandum in Support of Motion found under the event list Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. ***NOTE TO ATTORNEY*** − The Document that is Attachment #1 to this Memorandum IS THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Re−File that Document as the Motion first, then file and link all supporting documents. (db) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Julia Miriam Pinover to RE−FILE Document 23 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, 19 Declaration in Support of Motion, 16 Declaration in Support of Motion, 27 Declaration in Support of Motion, 18 Declaration in Support of Motion, 26 Declaration in Support of Motion, 21 Declaration in Support of Motion, 20 Declaration in Support of Motion, 17 Declaration in Support of Motion, 15 Declaration in Support of Motion, 22 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 24 Declaration in Support of Motion, 25 Declaration in Support of Motion, 14 Declaration in Support of Motion. ERROR(S): Supporting Documents must be linked to the Correct Motion. (db) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
29 FIRST MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
30 AFFIDAVIT of Julia Pinover in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B (Part 1), # 3 Exhibit B (Part 2), # 4 Exhibit B (Part 3), # 5 Exhibit B (Part 4), # 6 Exhibit B (Part 5), # 7 Exhibit C, # 8 Exhibit D)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
31 DECLARATION of Celine Perez in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Excerpt), # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Errata C (Excerpt))(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
32 DECLARATION of Philip Dyson in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)

10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010 10/01/2010
10/05/2010 10/08/2010 10/12/2010

33 DECLARATION of Pat Bianchi in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
34 DECLARATION of Michael C. Collins in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
35 DECLARATION of Rima McCoy in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
36 DECLARATION of Linda Ostreicher in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
37 DECLARATION of Henry Lee in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
38 DECLARATION of Gisell Claudio in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
39 SECOND MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Supplemental Submission of Fact. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
40 DECLARATION of Michael Waterstone in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
41 DECLARATION of Andrew D. Schwarz in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Errata 6)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
42 DECLARATION of Rima McCoy (Supplemental) in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
43 DECLARATION of Jen Halbert in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
44 SECOND MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Renewed Motion and Supplemental Submission of Fact. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Amended Proposed OSC)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/01/2010)
45 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Stephen Kitzinger dated 9/28/10 re: Request for a 30 day extension of time to respond to the complaint. ENDORSEMENT: Denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 10/5/10) (db) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
46 NOTICE of Errata. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Errata Complete Exhibit B to Rima McCoy's Supplemental Declaration in Support of Preliminary Injunction)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
47 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 10/12/2010)

10/12/2010 10/13/2010 10/28/2010
11/05/2010 11/05/2010 11/24/2010 01/06/2011
01/24/2011 01/24/2011 01/28/2011
02/16/2011 02/25/2011 03/01/2011 03/02/2011 03/18/2011
05/02/2011
10/21/2011 10/25/2011

48 DECLARATION of Stephen Kitzinger in Opposition re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
49 AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
50 ORDER: At this stage of the proceeding, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing a substantial or clear likelihood of success on the merits. The Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction must therefore be DENIED. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 10/28/2010) (jfe) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
51 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on October 27, 2010 at 11:12 a.m. before Judge Deborah A. Batts. (js) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
52 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on October 20, 2010 at 11:15 a.m. before Judge Deborah A. Batts. (js) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
53 NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
54 ORDER: To date, no Answer has been filed nor further request for extension made, and the Court is at a loss for words to describe the kind of default Defendants now find themselves in. Within 20 days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall file an Answer. There shall be no extensions. Should Defendants fail to file their Answer as directed, the Plaintiffs may make appropriate motions. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 1/6/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
55 MOTION to Dismiss. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. Responses due by 2/7/2011(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
56 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 55 MOTION to Dismiss.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
57 ORDER: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint is DENIED. Defendants are Ordered to Answer the Complaint within 20 days of the date of this Order. ORDER denying 55 Motion to Dismiss. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 1/28/11) (db) (Entered: 01/28/2011)
58 ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent.(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 59 ORDER. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (lnl) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
59 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Mariann Meier Wang on behalf of Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association (Wang, Mariann) (Entered: 03/01/2011)
60 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Kevin Todd Mintzer on behalf of Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association (Mintzer, Kevin) (Entered: 03/02/2011)
61 SCHEDULING ORDER: This trial is to be tried to a jury. Estimated trial time is 5−10 days. Discovery due by 12/16/2011. Status Conference set for 1/27/2012 at 11:30 AM before Judge Deborah A. Batts. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 3/18/2011) (jpo) (Entered: 03/18/2011)
62 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Mariann Meier Wang on behalf of Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. New Address: Cuti Hecker Wang LLP, 154 Grand Street, New York, NY, United States 10013, 646−205−3643. (Wang, Mariann) (Entered: 05/02/2011)
63 MOTION for Stuart Seaborn to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(wb) (pgu). (Entered: 10/24/2011)
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 63 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $200.00, paid on 10/21/2011, Receipt Number 1019858. (jd) (Entered: 10/25/2011)

11/16/2011 12/14/2011 02/01/2012
03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012
03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012
03/16/2012 03/16/2012

64 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE granting 63 Motion for Stuart Seaborn to Appear Pro Hac Vice as counsel for Plaintiffs. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 11/7/2011) (ab) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
65 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER:Dispositive Motions due by 3/16/2012. Responses due by 4/13/2012 Replies due by 4/27/2012. Non−Expert Discovery due by 1/27/2012 and letters re intent to make bases for SJ motion sent to Court by 229/2012. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 12/14/2011) (cd) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
66 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Julia Pinover dated 1/11/2012 re: Counsel for the plaintiffs request a pre−motion conference concerning Defendants' failure to timely respond to Plaintiffs document requests, Plaintiffs' proposed motion for class certification, and Plaintiffs proposed motion for leave to amend the complaint. ENDORSEMENT: Proposed motions are DENIED at this time pending resolution of motions for summary judgment. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 2/1/2012) (ft) (Entered: 02/01/2012)
67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. Responses due by 4/13/2012(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
68 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
69 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
70 DECLARATION of Stuart Seaborn in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
71 DECLARATION of Rima McCoy in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
72 DECLARATION of James Weisman in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
73 DECLARATION of Paula Wolff in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
74 DECLARATION of Denise McQuade in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
75 DECLARATION of Mae Carbajosa in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
76 DECLARATION of Celine Perez in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
77 DECLARATION of Ramon Santos in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.

03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012
03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 03/16/2012 04/12/2012 04/24/2012
04/27/2012 04/27/2012 04/27/2012 04/27/2012

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
78 DECLARATION of Michael Waterstone in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
79 DECLARATION of Andrew Schwarz in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−12C, # 2 Exhibit Sources Relied Upon, # 3 Exhibit Texts Relied Upon)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
80 MOTION Request for Judicial Notice re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
81 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. Responses due by 4/13/2012 Return Date set for 4/27/2012 at 09:30 AM.(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
82 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
83 DECLARATION of John P. O'Grady in Support re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
84 DECLARATION of Stephen Thompson in Support re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
85 DECLARATION of Stephen Kitzinger in Support re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
86 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
87 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Julia Pinover dated 4/12/2012 re: Request for extension of the briefing schedule. ENDORSEMENT: Both parties are granted a two−week extension of the briefing schedule. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 4/12/2012) (rjm) (Entered: 04/12/2012)
88 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Stephen Kitzinger dated 4/23/2012 re: write to request a second two−week extension of the briefing schedule for plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, which extension would make defendants' opposition due on May 11th, and plaintiffs' reply, if any, due on May 25th. Plaintiffs' counsel declined to consent to this request stating that. ENDORSEMENT: Denied. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 4/24/2012) (js) Modified on 4/26/2012 (tro). (Entered: 04/24/2012)
89 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
90 COUNTER STATEMENT TO 82 Rule 56.1 Statement. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
91 DECLARATION of Stuart Seaborn in Opposition re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
92 DECLARATION of Rima McCoy in Opposition re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

04/27/2012 04/27/2012 04/27/2012 04/27/2012 04/27/2012 04/27/2012 04/27/2012 05/11/2012 05/11/2012 05/11/2012
05/11/2012 05/11/2012 08/08/2012
08/08/2012
08/08/2012

93 DECLARATION of James Weisman in Opposition re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
94 DECLARATION of Paula Wolff in Opposition re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
95 COUNTER STATEMENT TO 69 Rule 56.1 Statement. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
96 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
97 DECLARATION of Stephen Kitzinger in Opposition re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
98 DECLARATION of John P. O'Grady in Opposition re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
99 DECLARATION of Stephen Thompson in Opposition re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 04/27/2012)
100 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Wolinsky, Sid) Modified on 5/22/2012 (db). (Entered: 05/11/2012)
101 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
102 DECLARATION of Stuart Seaborn in Support re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
103 MOTION Request for Judicial Notice re: 101 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
104 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
105 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied; and the case is referred to Honorable Henry Pitman, Magistrate Judge, for the determination of remedy consistent with this Order. granting 80 Motion; denying 81 Motion for Summary Judgment.. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 8/8/2012) (ago) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
106 MEMORANDUM and ORDER: Because of the short time involved before the September primary, it is inappropriate for the Court to refer this case to the Magistrate Judge; I thereby withdraw the reference to Magistrate Judge Pitman. Parties shall appear before the Court at 11:00 AM on 8/27/2012. (Conference set for 8/27/2012 at 11:00 AM before Judge Deborah A. Batts.) (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 8/8/2012) (ago) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
108 INTERNET CITATION NOTE: Material from decision with Internet citation re: 105 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,. (tro) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

08/15/2012
08/27/2012 09/10/2012 10/11/2012 10/11/2012 10/11/2012 10/11/2012
10/11/2012
10/11/2012
10/11/2012 10/11/2012 10/11/2012 10/11/2012 10/15/2012

107 ORDER: The Parties are currently scheduled for a hearing before the Court on August 27, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. Prior to that Court appearance, the Parties are to meet, at least once, and develop potential remedies as a basis for the August 27, 2012 hearing before the Court. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 8/15/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Deborah A. Batts: Hearing held on 8/27/2012. Hearing held and concluded. Transcript to follow. (lmb) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Deborah A. Batts: Hearing held and concluded on 9/10/2012. Transcript to follow. (rjm) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
109 STATUS REPORT. concerning accessibility problems at select poll sites during the September 13, 2012 Primary Election Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent.(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
110 STATUS REPORT. Letter Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Proposed Remedial Plan Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
111 DECLARATION of Monica Bartley in Support re: 110 Status Report. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
112 DECLARATION of Stuart Seaborn in Support re: 110 Status Report. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C (Part 1), # 4 Exhibit C (Part 2), # 5 Exhibit C (Part 3), # 6 Exhibit C (Part 4), # 7 Exhibit C (Part 5), # 8 Exhibit C (Part 6), # 9 Exhibit D, # 10 Exhibit E)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
113 DECLARATION of Susan Dooha in Support re: 110 Status Report. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
114 DECLARATION of Margi Trapani in Support re: 110 Status Report. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
115 DECLARATION of Gisell Claudio in Support re: 110 Status Report. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
116 DECLARATION of Van K. Ly in Support re: 110 Status Report. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
117 DECLARATION of Ramon Santos in Support re: 110 Status Report. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
118 DECLARATION of Heidi Siegfried in Support re: 110 Status Report. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 10/11/2012)
Minute Entry: for proceedings held before Judge Deborah A. Batts: Status Conference held on 10/15/2012. Plaintiffs counsels Stuart Seaborn and Julia Pinover present, defense counsels Steven Kitzinger, Steven Richman, Raphael Savino present. Also present, AUSA Alicia Simmons. Hearing held and concluded. Transcript to follow.

10/18/2012
10/19/2012
10/19/2012
10/19/2012 10/26/2012 10/26/2012 10/26/2012 10/26/2012

(djc) (Entered: 11/13/2012)
119 ORDER: that having considered the parties' proposals and concerns, the Court hereby ORDERS that, Accessible polling sites are and shall be the cornerstone of the voting accessibility program of the BOE. The BOE has an obligation to provide an accessible voting program under federal law. The BOE shall maintain in operable working condition, on the day of any election, those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be provided by the BOE to make polling sites temporarily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. Additional relief as set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 10/18/2012) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Part 2, # 2 Supplement Part 3)(pl) (Entered: 10/18/2012)
120 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 8/27/2012 before Judge Deborah A. Batts. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Rose Prater, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/13/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/26/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/22/2013.(Moya, Goretti) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
121 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 8/27/12 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Moya, Goretti) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
122 ORDER OF REFERENCE TO A MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Specific Non−Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Matter's contain within the Remedial Order dated 10/18/12. Referred to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 10/19/2012) (ama) (Entered: 10/19/2012)
123 NOTICE OF APPEAL from 119 Order,,. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 123 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
Appeal Fee Due: for 123 Notice of Appeal. Appeal fee due by 11/9/2012. (tp) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for 73 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 23 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 5 FIRST MOTION for Limited Admission of Sid Wolinsky (Pro Hac Vice). filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 115 Declaration in Support, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 102 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 19 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 105 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,, 70 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 57 Order on Motion to Dismiss, 1 Complaint filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 65 Scheduling Order, 46 Notice (Other) filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 29 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 48 Declaration in Opposition to Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 27 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 82 Rule 56.1 Statement filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 63 MOTION for Stuart Seaborn to Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 18 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 60 Notice of Appearance filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 56 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 120 Transcript,, 101 Reply

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 55 MOTION to Dismiss. filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 42 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 12 Order to Show Cause,,, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 107 Order, 83 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 26 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 103 MOTION Request for Judicial Notice re: 101 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion. filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 11 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 119 Order,, 85 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 76 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 40 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 6 MOTION for Sid Wolinsky to Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 111 Declaration in Support, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 95 Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 59 Notice of Appearance filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 69 Rule 56.1 Statement filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 43 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 36 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 21 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 34 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 75 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 39 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 17 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 41 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 38 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 10 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 7 Notice of Appearance filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 24 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 22 Affidavit in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 112 Declaration in Support, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 108 Internet Citation, 92 Declaration in Opposition to Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 47 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 64 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 54 Order, 66 Endorsed Letter,, 8 Endorsed Letter, Set Deadlines/Hearings,, 33 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 94 Declaration in Opposition to Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 14 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 100 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 84 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 2 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 93 Declaration in Opposition to Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 87 Endorsed Letter, 121 Notice of Filing Transcript, 3 Affidavit of Service Complaints filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 80 MOTION Request for Judicial Notice re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. MOTION Request for Judicial Notice re: 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 99 Declaration in Opposition to Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 28 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 79 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 32 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 78 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 106 Order, Set Hearings,, 16 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 72 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 50 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 68 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 31 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 30 Affidavit in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 116 Declaration in Support, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 45 Endorsed Letter,

11/05/2012 11/15/2012
12/21/2012

110 Status Report filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 9 MOTION for Ronald Elsberry to Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 86 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 44 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 97 Declaration in Opposition to Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 13 FIRST MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 53 Notice (Other) filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 122 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge, 37 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 74 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 35 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 62 Notice of Change of Address filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 20 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 113 Declaration in Support, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 117 Declaration in Support filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 109 Status Report filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 49 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 4 Affidavit of Service Complaints filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 104 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 15 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 98 Declaration in Opposition to Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 77 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 71 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 61 Scheduling Order, 123 Notice of Appeal filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 25 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 58 Answer to Complaint filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 91 Declaration in Opposition to Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 114 Declaration in Support,, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 89 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 118 Declaration in Support filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association, 96 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent, 88 Endorsed Letter, Set Deadlines,,,, 90 Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455.00 receipt number 465401052075 on 11/5/2012 re: 123 Notice of Appeal filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (tp) (Entered: 11/05/2012)
124 ORDER: In paragraph 6 of her Order dated October 18, 2012, the Honorable Deborah A. Batts, United States District Judge, directed the parties to provide me with an updated version of Attachment A to the October 18, 2012, subsequent to each Election Day. The parties are directed to make such submissions six (6) weeks after each Election Day. Accordingly, the first updated version of Attachment A to the October 18, 2012 Order is due no later than December 18, 2012. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 11/15/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ft) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
125 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: On November 15,2012, the Court ordered the parties to submit the first updated version of Attachment A to the Court's October 18, 2012 Order by December 18, 2012. After considering the joint proposal to modify that schedule, the Court amends the November 15, 2012 Order as follows: January 15, 2013: the parties will exchange drafts of proposed updates to Attachment A. February 1, 2013: the parties will submit to the Court an updated version of Attachment A. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 12/20/2012) (ago) (Entered: 12/21/2012)

01/11/2013 01/28/2013 02/08/2013 03/26/2013
05/13/2013
06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013 06/07/2013

126 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Christine Hsiao−Ting Chuang on behalf of Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association (Chuang, Christine) (Entered: 01/11/2013)
127 ORDER: Although I am confident that all the candidate firms could complete the assignment, I conclude that ETA is the most qualified, and, pursuant to paragraph 8 of Judge Batts' October 18, 2012 Order, I designate it as the Third Party Expert. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 1/28/2013)Copies Sent By Cahmbers. (djc) Modified on 2/5/2013 (djc). (Entered: 01/28/2013)
128 ORDER: Accordingly, if plaintiffs believe that some further action needs to be taken as a result of the Schedule A submitted on February 1, 2013, they are directed to set forth their application in writing no later than March 11, 2013. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 2/7/2013) Copies Transmitted by Chambers(js) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
129 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Stephen Kitzinger dated 3/22/2013 re: I am the Assistant Corporation Counsel assigned to represent the defendants in the above−referenced action. I am pleased to report that the Board and CID−NY have reached an agreement that the amount of compensation should be $29,362.50. The Board respectfully requests that Your Honor "so order" this amount in accordance with the terms of the Remedial Order in order to allow the Board to tender payment. ENDORSEMENT: PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT SET FORTH HEREIN IS APPROVED ON CONSENT. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 3/25/2013) (ft) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
130 MODIFIED ORDER: Having considered the parties' proposals and concerns, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 1. Accessible polling sites are and shall be the cornerstone of the voting accessibility program of the BOE. The BOE has an obligation to provide an accessible voting program under federal law. 2. The BOE shall maintain in operable working condition, on the day of any election, those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be provided by the BOE to make polling sites temporarily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction over compliance with this Order through December 31, 2016. 30 days before the expiration of this period, the parties shall submit briefing to the Court on the BOE's compliance with the Order, and make recommendations as to whether the Court should retain jurisdiction over the matter. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 5/13/2013) (ft) (Entered: 05/13/2013)
131 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 9/10/2012 before Judge Deborah A. Batts. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carol Ganley, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/1/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/11/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/9/2013.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
132 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 9/10/12 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
133 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: ARGUMENT held on 10/15/2012 before Judge Deborah A. Batts. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Paula Speer, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/1/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/11/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/9/2013.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
134 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a ARGUMENT proceeding held on 10/15/12 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely

08/06/2013 08/16/2013 10/22/2013
06/09/2014 06/11/2014
08/22/2014 09/17/2014
09/17/2014 11/19/2014

electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 06/07/2013)
135 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Julia Miriam Pinover on behalf of All Plaintiffs. New Address: Disability Rights Advocates, 40 Worth Street, 10th Floor, New York, New York, United States 10013, 212−644−8644. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
136 LETTER (Certified Copy) as to 123 Notice of Appeal filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent; USCA Case Number 12−4412. Appellants Board of Elections in the City of New York advising the Court that the current President of the BOE is Frederic M. Umane, and that Mr. Umane's name should appear in the caption of this matter. Mr. Umane succeeded Julia Dent, who was the President of the BOE when the matter was filed and whose name previously appeared in the caption of this matter. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Certified: 08/16/2013. (nd) (Entered: 08/19/2013)
137 SCHEDULING ORDER: October 21, 2013: The Third Party Expert shall begin surveys of poll sites. On or before December 12, 2013: The Third Party Expert shall complete surveys of 5 poll sites in each borough (totaling 25 poll sites) and meet with Defendants to discuss the results of such surveys as well as any recommended modifications to the survey process based on this initial set of surveys. Beginning in January 2014: The Third Party Expert will conduct surveys of as many poll sites as practicable, with a goal of no fewer than 120 polling sites every two months (the "Survey Period"). All other provisions of Judge Batts' May 13, 2013 Modified Order shall remain in effect. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 10/22/2013) (ft) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
138 MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 123 Notice of Appeal filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent USCA Case Number 12−4412. Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the order of the District Court is AFFIRMED in accordance with the opinion of this court. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 06/09/2014. (nd) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
139 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS: The District Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on August 8, 2012 (Dkt. No. 105) and entered a remedial order on October 18, 2012 (Dkt. No. 119); Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on October 26, 2012 appealing the District Court's October 18, 2012 order; On May 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a judgment affirming the District Court's order; Judgment was entered by the District Court on June 9, 2014; The parties agree to try to resolve Plaintiffs' claim for fees and costs without the need for further litigation; The undersigned parties, therefore, by and through their counsel of record, hereby request that the Court order the following as set forth herein. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 6/11/2014) (ja) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
140 Costs Taxed as to 138 USCA Mandate, USCA Case Number 12−4412. in the amount of $312.20. on 08/22/2014 in favor of Appellees Disabled In Action against Appellants Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent. (nd) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
141 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS: The undersigned parties, by and through their counsel of record, hereby request that the Court order as follows: 1. That the time frame for the filing of a motion for attorneys' fees and costs will be extended an additional 60 days from September 22, 2014 to November 21, 2014; 2. That in the event the parties are unable to agree on the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiffs' counsel, Plaintiffs' counsel will file a motion with the Court and Defendants will have not less than 30 days to respond to such motion. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 9/17/2014) (kgo) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 11/21/2014. (kgo) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
142 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS: The undersigned parties, by and through their counsel of record, hereby request that the Court order as follows: 1. That the timeframe for the filing of a motion for attorneys' fees and costs will be extended an additional 30 days from November 21, 2014 to

11/19/2014 12/18/2014
12/18/2014 01/06/2015 01/26/2015
02/05/2015 02/20/2015
02/25/2015 02/26/2015 02/26/2015 03/05/2015 03/10/2015

December 22, 2014; 2. That in the event the parties are unable to agree on the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiffs' counsel, Plaintiffs' counsel will file a motion with the Court and Defendants will have not less than 30 days to respond to such motion. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 11/19/2014) (kgo) Modified on 11/19/2014 (kgo). (Entered: 11/19/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 12/22/2014. (kgo) (Entered: 11/19/2014)
143 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS: The undersigned parties therefore, by and through their counsel of record, hereby request that the Court order as follows: 1. That in the event the parties are unable to agree on the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiffs' counsel or the Corporation Counsel and the Comptroller do not approve the final agreed−upon amount, Plaintiffs' counsel shall file a motion with the Court by February 5, 2015 and Defendants will have 30 days to respond to such motion. No further extensions. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 12/18/2014) (kgo) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 2/5/2015. (kgo) (Entered: 12/18/2014)
144 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Chuang, Christine) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
145 ORDER: In late November, 2014, I received a report from plaintiffs' counsel on the status of the implementation of Judge Batts' Orders. Among other things, the report cited a number of problems that plaintiffs believe continue to exist and requested that the Court take six steps to remedy these problems. Defendants are directed to submit a written response to me on or before February 20, 2015. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 1/26/2015) Copies Sent by Chambers. (mro) (Entered: 01/26/2015)
146 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS CLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Chuang, Christine) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
147 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Stephen Kitzinger dated 2/19/2015 re: Counsel to defendants request that the Board's time to file its response be extended to 2/25/2015. ENDORSEMENT: APPLICATION GRANTED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 2/20/2015) (tn) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
148 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − RESPONSE re: 145 Order,, . Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York. (Kitzinger, Stephen) Modified on 2/26/2015 (db). (Entered: 02/25/2015)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − EVENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Stephen Edward Kitzinger to RE−FILE Document 148 Response. Use the event type Letter found under the event list Other Documents. (db) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
149 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Stephen Kitzinger dated February 25, 2015 re: status of implementation of remedial order. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York.(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
A Discovery Conference is set for 3/19/2015 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom 18A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. (bh) (Entered: 03/05/2015)
150 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, as follows: The above−referenced action is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, with the Court retaining continuing jurisdiction regarding enforcement and compliance with the Court's orders dated August 8, 2012 (Dkt. No. 105), October 18, 2012 (Dkt. No. 119), and May 13, 2013 (Dkt. No. 130), and without costs, expenses, or fees in excess of the amount specified. The City of New York hereby agrees to pay Plaintiffs, the sum of $1,800,000, by check made payable to Disability Rights Advocates, and the following as further set forth herein. (Signed by Judge Deborah A.

03/10/2015 03/19/2015 04/02/2015 07/14/2015 07/17/2015 07/20/2015 08/07/2015
08/24/2015 10/14/2015
10/26/2015
10/26/2015
02/05/2016 03/04/2016

Batts on 3/10/2015) (kgo) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
Terminate Transcript Deadlines (kgo) (Entered: 03/10/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: Discovery Hearing held on 3/19/2015. Order to follow. (bh) (Entered: 03/19/2015)
151 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Stephen Kitzinger dated April 2, 2015 re: Board of Elections consenting to the presence of plaintiffs' representative at training. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York.(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
152 NOTICE of Withdrawal of counsel. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Seaborn, Stuart) (Entered: 07/14/2015)
153 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 152 Notice (Other) filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. ENDORSEMENT: APPLICATION GRANTED. Attorney Christine Hsiao−Ting Chuang terminated. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 7/17/2015) (tn) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
154 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Christina Louise Brandt−Young on behalf of Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 07/20/2015)
155 ORDER: In recent weeks I have received copies of a number of reports authored by Evan Terry Associates, LLC, reporting on the accessibility of polling places in New York City. All the reports appear to indicate that the locations surveyed are accessible. If plaintiffs believe any of the reports need to be addressed or that there are other issues to be resolved, I rely on counsel to call such matters to my attention. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 8/6/2015) Copies Sent By Chambers. (lmb) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
156 FIRST LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christina Brandt−Young dated 8/24/2015 re: Evan Terry Associates Reports. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 08/24/2015)
157 ORDER: Yesterday I received copies of a number of reports authored by Evan Terry Associates, LLC, reporting on the accessibility of polling places in New York City. Again, if plaintiffs believe any of the reports need to be addressed or that there are other issues to be resolved, I rely on counsel to raise such matters with the Court. Given the proximity of election day November 3, 2015 −− any issues that need to be resolved should be addressed as soon as possible. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 10/14/2015) Copies Sent By Chambers. (lmb) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
158 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Discovery Hearing held on 3/19/2015 before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carole Ludwig, (212) 420−0771. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/19/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/30/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/27/2016.(ca) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
159 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Discovery Hearing proceeding held on 03/19/2015 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(ca) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
160 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Christina Louise Brandt−Young on behalf of All Plaintiffs. New Address: Disability Rights Advocates, 675 Third Avenue, Suite 2216, New York, New York, United States 10017, 2126448644. (Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 02/05/2016)
161 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman

03/07/2016 03/07/2016
03/18/2016 04/28/2016 04/29/2016
05/06/2016 05/16/2016 06/10/2016

from Christina Brandt−Young dated March 4, 2016. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of M. Bartley, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of M. Trapani, # 3 Exhibit 1. 5.13.2013 modified order, # 4 Exhibit 2. DRA's_ETA_site−category_analysis_through_10.7.15_Batch4, # 5 Exhibit 3a. PollSiteSurvey_2015_FINAL, # 6 Exhibit 3b. PollSiteSurvey_2015−AttachmentA_Pictures, # 7 Exhibit 3c. PollSiteSurvey_2015−BarrierChart, # 8 Exhibit 4. Provisional Master_Poll_Site_Chart_w_2015_Elections, # 9 Exhibit 5. Schools LOF Signed)(Brandt−Young, Christina) Modified on 3/7/2016 (db). (Entered: 03/04/2016)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − EVENT TYPE ERROR. Notice to Attorney Christina Louise Brandt−Young to RE−FILE Document 161 LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christina Brandt−Young dated March 4, 2016. Use the event type Letter found under the event list Other Documents. (db) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
162 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christina Brandt−Young dated March 4, 2016 re: Compliance with the Remedial Order by the Board of Elections. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of M. Bartley, # 2 Affidavit Declaration of M. Trapani, # 3 Exhibit 1. 5.13.2013 modified order, # 4 Exhibit 2. DRA's_ETA_site−category_analysis_through_10.7.15_Batch4, # 5 Exhibit 3a. PollSiteSurvey_2015_FINAL, # 6 Exhibit 3b. PollSiteSurvey_2015−AttachmentA_Pictures, # 7 Exhibit 3c. PollSiteSurvey_2015−BarrierChart, # 8 Exhibit 4. Provisional_Master_Poll_Site_Chart_w_2015_Elections, # 9 Exhibit 5. Schools LOF Signed)(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
163 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Stephen Kitzinger dated March 18, 2016 re: Compliance with the Court's Remedial Order. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Poll Site Survey Report)(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/18/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: Discovery Hearing held on 4/28/2016. (bh) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
164 ORDER: 1. Defendants are directed to inquire promptly of the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education, in writing, whether they are willing to make permanent accessability modifications at the school and the City agency sites that the Board of Elections expects to designate as poll sites (see Letter of Stephen Kitzinger, Esq., to the undersigned, dated March 18, 2016 (Docket Item 163) at 3). Defendants are directed to request a written response from the City and the Department of Education; defendants are also directed to provide copies of their letter and any response thereto to plaintiffs' counsel. 2. No later than May 6, 2016, plaintiffs' counsel is to advise me whether there are sufficient third−party trainers (approximately 40) to train the Board of Elections' newly appointed pole workers, i.e., the July 2016 appointees, concerning accessability issues and the cost of retaining those third−party trainers to conduct such training. If defendants are aware of any legal limitations on who is permitted to conduct such training, they are to call such limitations to my attention by May 6, 2016. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 4/29/2016) Copies Sent By Chambers. (lmb) (Entered: 04/29/2016)
165 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christina Brandt−Young dated May 6, 2016 re: Court's Order dated April 29, 2016. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 05/06/2016)
166 SECOND LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christina Brandt−Young dated May 16, 2016 re: Court's Order dated April 29, 2016. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
167 ORDER: Plaintiffs' application to have third−parties, The Lisa K. Young and Hock E. Tan Institute on Employment and Disability Center at Cornell University and Evan Terry Associates, conduct the training of the BOE's trainers with respect to accessibility issues at poll sites is granted. Defendants shall bear the cost of the

06/10/2016 06/13/2016 06/14/2016 06/14/2016 06/14/2016
06/14/2016
06/15/2016 06/17/2016 07/06/2016 12/01/2016 12/01/2016
12/01/2016

services provided by the third−party trainers. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 6/10/2016) (lmb) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
168 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − MOTION to Vacate 167 Order, directing the retention of accessibility trainers. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent.(Kitzinger, Stephen) Modified on 6/14/2016 (ldi). (Entered: 06/10/2016)
169 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christina Brandt−Young dated June 13, 2016 re: Response to Court's Order dated June 10, 2016. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − EVENT TYPE ERROR. Notice to Attorney Stephen Edward Kitzinger to RE−FILE Document 168 MOTION to Vacate 167 Order, directing the retention of accessibility trainers. Use the event type Letter found under the event list Other Documents. (ldi) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
170 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Stephen Kitzinger dated June 10, 2016 re: Order directing retention of trainers. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent.(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
171 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: conference held on 4/28/2016 before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Pamela Utter, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/8/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/18/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/15/2016.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
172 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a conference proceeding held on 4/28/16 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: Telephone Conference held on 6/15/2016. (bh) (Entered: 06/15/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: Telephone Conference held on 6/17/2016. Discovery conference set for July 6, 2016 at 3:00pm. (bh) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman: Telephone Conference held on 7/6/2016. (bh) (Entered: 07/07/2016)
173 LETTER addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Stephen Kitzinger dated December 1, 2016 re: Board of Elections compliance with terms of the remedial order. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent.(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
174 LETTER addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Christina Brandt−Young dated 12/01/2016 re: Progress under the Courts October 18, 2012 Remedial Order and requests for extension of jurisdiction and additional training. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
175 LETTER addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Christina Brandt−Young dated 12/01/2016 re: Request for pre−motion conference to join the Department of Education for purposes of enforcement of the remedial order. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 12/01/2016)

12/06/2016 12/22/2016
12/23/2016
12/23/2016 12/28/2016 01/04/2017
01/27/2017 01/27/2017 01/27/2017 01/27/2017 01/27/2017

176 LETTER addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Stephen Kitzinger dated December 6, 2016 re: Response to plaintiffs' pre−motion letter. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York.(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 12/06/2016)
177 ORDER. The Remedial Order of October 18, 2012 (dkt. 119), modified on May 13, 2013 (dkt. 130), is set to expire on December 31, 2016. The Court hereby EXTENDS the Remedial Order to December 31, 2018. This Court will retain jurisdiction over the above−captioned case until December 31, 2018. However, the Court's October 19, 2012 Order of Reference to Magistrate Judge Pitman (dkt. 122), over all matters concerning implementation of the Remedial Order, remains in effect. Parties are directed to send all future correspondence to Magistrate Judge Pitman. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 12/22/2016) (rjm) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
178 Vacated as per Judge's Order dated 12/28, Doc. #180 ORDER: Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) the Court will maintain jurisdiction over compliance with Judge Batts' May 13 Order until December 31, 2019 and (2) the parties shall submit letter briefs no later than December 1, 2019 addressing the BOE's compliance with Judge Batts' the May 13, 2013 Order and making recommendations as to whether the Court should continue to retain jurisdiction over the matter. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 12/23/2016) (cla) Modified on 12/28/2016 (cf). (Entered: 12/23/2016)
179 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 176 Letter re: Response to plaintiffs' pre−motion letter, filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York. ENDORSEMENT: I do not believe the issue raised in this letter can be resolved in a pre−motion conference. Plaintiffs may make their proposed motion whenever they deem it appropriate. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 12/23/2016) (cla) (Entered: 12/23/2016)
180 ORDER: In view of Judge Batts' Order dated December 22, 2016 (Docket Item 177), my Order dated December 23, 2016 (Docket Item 178) is hereby vacated in all respects. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 12/28/2016) Copies Sent By Chambers. (cf) (Entered: 12/28/2016)
181 ORDER: In light of Magistrate Judge Pittman's well−reasoned Order of December 23, 2016 (dkt. 178), the Court shall retain jurisdiction until December 31, 2019. The Court's initial extension Order (dkt. 177) is vacated in all respects. Consistent with Judge Pitman's Order (dkt. 178), Parties shall submit letter briefs to Judge Pittman no later than December 1, 2019, addressing the BOE's compliance with this Court's May 13 Order and whether the Court should continue to retain jurisdiction. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 1/4/2017) (kgo) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
182 MOTION to Add New York City Department of Education. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
183 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 182 MOTION to Add New York City Department of Education. . Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
184 DECLARATION of Claire Molholm in Support re: 182 MOTION to Add New York City Department of Education.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
185 DECLARATION of Christina Brandt−Young in Support re: 182 MOTION to Add New York City Department of Education.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit E, # 4 Exhibit F, # 5 Exhibit G, # 6 Exhibit H, # 7 Exhibit I, # 8 Exhibit J)(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
186 DECLARATION of Cheri Rosen in Support re: 182 MOTION to Add New York City Department of Education.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 01/27/2017)

01/27/2017
02/14/2017
02/15/2017 02/21/2017 02/21/2017
02/22/2017
02/22/2017 02/22/2017 03/20/2017 03/20/2017 03/24/2017 03/27/2017 05/24/2017
10/11/2017

187 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Motion to Join the New York City Department of Education for the Purpose of Implementing this Courts Remedial Order served on New York City Department of Education on January 27, 2017. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 01/27/2017)
188 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Motion to Join the New York City Department of Education for the Purpose of Implementing this Courts Remedial Order dated January 27, 2017 served on Paul Marks on February 14, 2017. Service was accepted by B. Mazyck. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
189 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Alan Maer Schlesinger on behalf of New York City Department of Education. (Schlesinger, Alan) (Entered: 02/15/2017)
190 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time For DOE To Respond To Plaintiffs' Motion To Join Under the All Writs Act addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Alan M. Schlesinger For DOE dated February 21, 2017. Document filed by New York City Department of Education.(Schlesinger, Alan) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
191 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christina Brandt−Young dated 02/21/2017 re: Response to the Department of Educations Letter Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs Motion to Join Under the All Writs Act. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
192 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 191 Letter, 190 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time For DOE To Respond To Plaintiffs' Motion To Join Under the All Writs Act addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Alan M. Schlesinger For DOE dated February 21, 2017. Reply Letter Concerning DOE's Leter Motion For An Extension Of Time addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Alan M. Schlesinger For DOE dated February 22, 2017. Document filed by New York City Department of Education.(Schlesinger, Alan) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
193 ORDER granting 190 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. DOE's time to respond to Plaintiff's motion is extended to 3−20−17. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 2/22/2017) (cf) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Responses due by 3/20/2017 (cf) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
194 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 182 MOTION to Add New York City Department of Education. Under the All Writs Act. Document filed by New York City Department of Education. (Schlesinger, Alan) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
195 RESPONSE to Motion re: 182 MOTION to Add New York City Department of Education. (Statement of no position). Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York. (Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 03/20/2017)
196 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Seth Emmanuel Packrone on behalf of Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Packrone, Seth) (Entered: 03/24/2017)
197 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 182 MOTION to Add New York City Department of Education. . Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
198 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman from Christina Brandt−Young and Stephen Kitzinger dated May 24, 2017 re: Revised American with Disabilities Act Checklist. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 05/24/2017)
199 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 182 MOTION to Add New York City Department of Education, filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, I respectfully recommend that plaintiffs' motion requesting an Order pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, joining the DOE, and directing the DOE to permanently resolve accessibility barriers

03/12/2018 03/26/2018 03/27/2018
04/26/2018 05/08/2018
05/08/2018 07/24/2018 07/25/2018 05/30/2019

at certain public schools and to take steps to ensure its employees do not frustrate defendants' implementation of the Remedial Orders (D.I. 182), be denied in all respects. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b) (1) (c) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). Such objections (and responses thereto) shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court with courtesy copies delivered to the Chambers of the Honorable Deborah A. Batts, United States District Judge, Room 2510, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, and to the Chambers of the undersigned, 500 Pearl Street, Room 1670, New York, New York 10007. Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Batts. FAILURE TO OBJECT WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL RESULT IN A WAIVER OF OBJECTIONS AND WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992); Wesolek v. Canadair Ltd., 838 F.2d 55, 57−59 (2d Cir. 1988); McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237−238 (2d Cir. 1983), and as further set forth herein. (Objections to R&R due by 10/25/2017.) (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 10/11/2017) Copies Transmitted By Chambers. (ras) (Entered: 10/11/2017)
200 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Christina Louise Brandt−Young on behalf of All Plaintiffs. New Address: Disability Rights Advocates, 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, New York, USA 10017, 2126448644. (Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
201 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Seth Emmanuel Packrone on behalf of All Plaintiffs. New Address: Disability Rights Advocates, 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, New York, USA 10017, 2126448644. (Packrone, Seth) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
202 ADOPTION OF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION for 199 Report and Recommendations. It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman dated October 11, 2017 be and the same hereby is APPROVED, ADOPTED, and RATIFIED by the Court in its entirety; 2. Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Pitman's recommendation, Plaintiffs' Motion to join the DOE as a Defendant and direct them to permanently resolve accessibility barriers in specified public schools, and institute disciplinary action against DOE employees who interfere with efforts to make polling sites more accessible is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall close docket number 182. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 3/27/2018) (kgo) (Entered: 03/27/2018)
203 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT for Attorneys' Fees and Costs for Monitoring. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Packrone, Seth) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
204 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS: IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned, as follows: The above−referenced action is hereby dismissed, with prejudice, with the Court retaining continuing jurisdiction regarding enforcement and compliance with the Court's orders. The City of New York hereby agrees to pay Plaintiffs, within ninety (90) days of the later of the filing of this Stipulation or defendants receipt of the releases referred to herein, the sum of $455,000, by check made payable to Disability Rights Advocates. (As further set forth herein.) (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 5/7/2018) (kgo) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
Terminate Transcript Deadlines (kgo) (Entered: 05/09/2018)
205 MOTION for Christina Brandt−Young to Withdraw as Attorney . Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
206 MEMO ENDORSEMENT granting 205 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ENDORSEMENT: GRANTED. Attorney Christina Louise Brandt−Young terminated. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 7/25/2018) (kgo) (Entered: 07/25/2018)
207 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Andrea Moody Kozak−Oxnard on behalf of Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Kozak−Oxnard, Andrea) (Entered: 05/30/2019)

05/30/2019 05/30/2019
06/11/2019 11/27/2019
12/01/2019 01/10/2020

208 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Christina Louise Brandt−Young on behalf of Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
209 JOINT LETTER MOTION to Reopen Order Re: Attachment A addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Christina Brandt−Young and Stephen Kitzinger dated May 30, 2019. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association.(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 05/30/2019)
210 ORDER granting 209 Letter Motion to Reopen: Granted. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 6/11/2019) (jwh) (Entered: 06/11/2019)
211 LETTER addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Christina Brandt−Young dated November 27, 2019 re: Final Progress Letter. Document filed by Disabled in Action, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Brandt−Young, Christina) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
212 LETTER addressed to Judge Deborah A. Batts from Stephen Kitzinger dated December 1, 2019 re: status report. Document filed by Board of Elections in the City of New York, Julia Dent.(Kitzinger, Stephen) (Entered: 12/01/2019)
213 ORDER: The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs' Letter dated November 27, 2019 and Defendants' Letter dated December 1, 2019. (ECF Nos. 211−12.) The Parties both ask that this Court's jurisdiction expire, as scheduled, on December 31, 2019 pursuant to the terms of our January 4, 2017 Order, (ECF No. 181). Accordingly, this Court's jurisdiction over this matter is HEREBY terminated. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the docket in this case. (Signed by Judge Deborah A. Batts on 1/10/2020) (rro) (Entered: 01/10/2020)