MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, comprised of a group of both individuals and non-profit groups, bring a class-action lawsuit against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (the “MTA”), Veronique Hakim, in her official capacity as interim executive director of the MTA, New York City Transit Authority (the “NYCTA”), and Darryl C. Irick, in his official capacity as acting President of the NYCTA (collectively, “Defendants”) for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12131, et seq., the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. §794, and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-101 et seq., seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and attorneys’ fees. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants have engaged in “systemic, discriminatory exclusion” of individuals with disabilities because Defendants “fail to maintain the already limited number of elevators in the subway system.” (Compl., ECF No. 1, at 1.) Pending before this Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, (see Notice of Mot. for Partial Summ. J., ECF No. 142; Transit Defs’ Notice of Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 157), as well as the parties’ cross-motions in limine to exclude their opponents’ experts, (see Notice of Mot. to Exclude Expert Test. of Dennis W. Olson, ECF No. 151; Defs.’ Notice of Mot. to Preclude Pls.’ Experts, ECF No. 153). Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Additionally, both parties’ motions in limine, (ECF Nos. 151, 153), are denied. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs represent a class of “all persons who use or seek to use the [NYC Subway], and have a disability that requires them to use an elevator to access the subway system.” (Stipulation and Order Certifying Class, ECF No. 63, at 3.) Plaintiffs claim that although the NYC Subway is “the largest and most traveled subway system in the country,” it is inaccessible to people with mobility disabilities due to “frequent and continuous elevator outages, poor maintenance and inspection of elevators, and lack of notice or alternative accommodations during outages.” (Compl. at
73, 159.) Additionally, Plaintiffs claim that of the limited number of elevators, Defendants fail to appropriately maintain the elevators so that they operate in a “functional condition.” (Id. at 76.) Specifically, Plaintiffs emphasize the number of elevator outages per day, how long those outages last, and the general condition and cleanliness of the elevators when they are in working order. (Id. at
