By Gus Saltonstall
A group of Morningside Heights residents are in the midst of a legal battle against Columbia University to reopen its campus gates and restore access to the 116th Street walkway that crosses the campus from Broadway to Amsterdam Avenue, a lawsuit filed last month shows.
The class action lawsuit, which names four longtime, elderly Morningside Heights residents as plaintiffs, claims that Columbia University’s decision to close its gates violates the Americans with Disabilities Act by hindering older residents’ ability to easily traverse their neighborhood, while also breaching a 1953 agreement that labeled the 116th Street walkway, also known as “College Walk,” as a public-use space, according to the lawsuit.
Restrictions at the Morningside Heights campus began last spring, when the Israel-Hamas conflict sparked student demonstrations that culminated in the occupation of Hamilton Hall by pro-Palestine protesters. Security measures have included locked gates, barricades, and a requirement that anyone entering campus must have a Columbia ID or a university-issued QR code granting permission.
The plaintiffs contend that the access restriction creates a six-block barrier, closing the campus to public traffic between Broadway and Amsterdam, from 114th to 120th street. Residents who once could cross campus on a pedestrian walkway at West 116th Street, or via other campus entrances on Amsterdam or Broadway, now can only travel between those avenues via 114th or 120th.
The lawsuit says this creates a particular challenge for elderly pedestrians and those with disabilities who need to access subway or bus lines on Broadway.
“Individuals who need to cross the campus for access to and from the 116th Street subway stop [on Broadway] have to walk around the Columbia blockade which adds 15 or more minutes of extra walking to their commute each way,” the lawsuit reads. “This is particularly hard on workers who have long subway rides as well as jobs that are physically demanding. It is also particularly hard for anyone with mobility impairments or who is carrying groceries or wheeling children in strollers or carriages.”
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of four plaintiffs:
- Phillipe Auffray, a senior citizen who has lived in Morningside Heights his entire life and lives in an apartment on West 116th Street with his 97-year-old mother.
- Barbara Griffiths, 92, who has lived with her husband on West 118th Street since 1966.
- Mary Allen: 86, who lives near the campus on Riverside Drive and has lived in Morningside Heights for more than six decades.
- Christine Ruyter, who has lived in Morningside Heights for more than 40 years.
Columbia sent West Side Rag the following statement when asked for comment about the lawsuit.
“As President Armstrong reiterated in her January 24 update, the University is evaluating Morningside campus access on an ongoing basis,” a spokesperson for the school said. “We are focused on ensuring that all of our students feel welcome, safe, and secure on our campus as we also balance the desire for an open campus that is accessible to all of Columbia’s valued constituencies, including our neighbors. Columbia’s commitment to New York City and to our community, as well as the daily experiences of our neighbors, weighs heavily on our decision-making.”
The school added that in February it implemented changes to access protocols to streamline for alumni, local residents, family of faculty, and university guests. The spokesperson did not specify how it had improved access for local residents.
The lawsuit calls for a judgment declaring that Columbia has no legal authorization for its closure of the 116th Street College Walk. It asks for restoration of public access to College Walk and damages to be paid to members of the class who have incurred financial harm as a result of the closure.
The next court date for the case is on March 5.
You can check out the full lawsuit and accompanying legal documents — HERE.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
The city as well as the university have every right to close streets in a security emergency. This happens every day in New York. We all saw what happened last year. Random non affiliates and professional protestors infiltrated and caused endless disruptions of the campus. Since the gates have been closed to non-affiliates, the disruptions have been negligible. I guess these “neighbors” are putting their interests ahead of all the university students, faculty, and staff safety. Sometimes we all have to make concessions in an emergency.
Let’s not turn College Walk into the Gaza Strip West, please. Open our streets and let’s live in peace. Let’s not forget the late 60’s were much worse on this campus.
It would seem that the emergency is over.
It’s hardly an emergency. Columbia could have easily restricted access to the rest of the campus and kept the walkway open, though the rationale for doing even that is flimsy.
Tim,
The lack of issue between Amsterdam and Broadway is a significant issue.
It is not just residents but also workers, visitors etc.
Especially an issue given hospital and senior residence on Amsterdam.
And was even worse when Amsterdam was closed for “open streets” as buses were detoured.
Nope. That wasn’t the agreement that was struck when the legally binding arrangement came to be. The City doesn’t revolve around Columbia. If they have to hire additional security they can.
Wrong. The city and university can close streets at any time for security. Did you watch the Superbowl?
Slippery slope. The orange guy in the White House thinks he can declare everything an emergency, and that then gives his absolute authority.
dems did it during the scamdemic
If the university is issuing access passes to various groups of people, why not issue them for local residents in a given zone? This is clearly not an all or nothing proposition. If there is a legal right of way across campus, a swipe card or ID card for those with proof of residency will do the trick. These elderly neighbors didn’t cause and won’t cause disruptions, but Columbia is causing huge disruption for them. They are right as rain to sue for their heretofore public sidewalks.
“every right to close streets in a security emergency.”
great!! but we’re not in an emergency anymore 🤭
You may not be., but protestors like to use Columbia’s famous campus for publicity.
Exactly. Emergency is over. And if protestors behave again in a way that makes the University want to go into lockdown again, penalize the protestors, not the citizens. Problem solved.
If you can’t behave in a way that is socially acceptable and does not interfere with others, you do not deserve to be part of the normal population. Very simple.
I think these protests were generally ridiculous and were being led by people who likely could not point out Israel on a map. That being said, there are plenty of ways to protest that do not interfere with the lives of others.
And another hint – these awful protests were making people dislike the protestors, not support them.
Bragg doesnt prosecute violent protesters. Hes busy going after bodega owners defending themselves
Alright Leon take it down a notch, we all agree Columbia doesn’t have a right to impose upon the people of the neighborhood.
Take it down a notch? Really? In this age of Donald Trump you find my language challenging? I am far from alone in my beliefs. And, believe it or not, as I have said before, i am a Democrat and many other Democrats agree with me.
I supported their right to protest. Just not the way they did. Most Americans don’t even think they should be protesting at all.
Given that his useless comment was posted, my response should not be censored.
“pro-Palestine protestors”
Call them what they are: Terrorist apologists, defenders, sympathizers, and antisemites.
This suit against Columbia should include suing them, and should include also suing Columbia for allowing such nonsense to take place on campus in the first place because if it had been handled properly then these additional measures (including the closing of the gates) would most likely never have been needed.
Disagreeing with Israeli government policies or military actions—like the killing of thousands in Gaza and the expansion of settlements—does not make someone antisemitic. Universities should encourage debate and discussion, not shut it down.
It’s about time
They are too busy coddling their law-breaking antisemitic students to worry about the community in which they are located.
Such an ironic comment – I believe the gates were closed to block those very students, weren’t they?
I wish the plaintiffs well. The school is required to maintain a public right-of-way along 116th street,and it shouldn’t take a handful of elderly folks filing a lawsuit to remind them of that.
Failure to keep it closed would allow the anti Jewish terror loving students from making life miserable for Jews at Columbia. I guess these “neighbors” are in favor of it?
what the heck are you talking about.
Columbia’s statement refers to “our campus”. The point of the suit and the agreement is that 116th isn’t part of their campus, it’s a public right of way, and they don’t have the right to make the unilateral decision to close it.
But it may not be a public right of way. That is what we will know after the court interprets the easement.
Absolutely right. I needed to get acrosss there at 8.30 last night in the freezing cold _ nope – walk 3 extra blocks. Total overkill. Every other university in the world manages to survive a student protest
Good for them!!!!
Columbia University should reopen its campus gates and restore access to the 116th Street walkway that crosses the campus from Broadway to Amsterdam Avenue!
We are all for it!
What can we do to make this happen?
I’d like to know City Council Member Sean Abreu’s position on this issue, as it’s in his district. I’d like to see open streets again even if there needs to be more of a security presence temporarily.
He’s opposed the closure. See this gift link: https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/01/15/admission-denied-columbia-must-reopen-its-gates/?share=weos5sctrpp5iogwstnm
Abreu and CB9 Chair Victor Edwards wrote an op-ed in the Daily News calling on Columbia to open the gates. Good. As a Columbia alum and native of Northern Manhattan, he has a solid grounding on the issue.
https://www.westsiderag.com/2025/01/16/columbia-must-reopen-its-gates-uws-and-morningside-heights-councilmember-tells-university-president
The campus needs to reopen to more groups of people. I have Columbia University library access because of a reciprocal agreement with a partner school. However, because I’m not a Columbia student, I can’t get on campus. Because I can’t get on campus, I can’t use the library. It is an absolute absurdity. At the very least, certain groups of people should be allowed access. Good luck to this group – fighting for rights and reason.
This came up in the previous reporting, but the NYTimes article from the 1950s about the use of 116th street makes it clear that the city gave the street to Columbia as long as Columbia allows the city to maintain public utilities below the street.
However, both the NYT coverage of the pedestrian walk and this lawsuit make it clear that they do not have access to the 1953 easement agreement between Columbia and the City. But it’s still an *easement* which likely gives Columbia significant control over the use of 116th.
This lawsuit is a shot in the dark. But it seems likely that Columbia knows what’s in the 1953 easement compared to the litigants.
It’s an unfortunate situation, but Columbia is not meritless in the closure. Just tonight a Palestinian group “flooded” Boro Park (a Jewish neighborhood) causing some level of mayhem. This is very much a live issue Columbia is dealing with.
Thank you 72RSD. I’ve read the NYTimes article as well as the documents in the ligation and have come to the same conclusion you have. The City “sold” the street to Columbia and in exchange, Columbia provided an easement to the City for installing and maintaining public utilities. Unfortunately, without the actual easement agreement we don’t know the exact details of the arrangement.
For those of you stating that Columbia is required to open the street or Columbia isn’t honoring the deal (at least legally), you may or may not be right.
If it is an easement, it means that although Columbia owns the land, legally others would be able to cross over it.
It depends on what the easement says. That is why you have to see it to know what the answer is.
Correct – but only for those that the easement benefits. If I own a piece of land and provide you an easement to access my land to get to your land, it means you get to use my land, not the general public.
Sadly, I don’t think “Columbia can ignore it’s obligations as long as there are any incidents of antisemitism anywhere in the city” is a reasonable standard.
That is emphatically not what I am saying. I am saying that the City seams to have sold an easement to Columbia allowing Columbia to control all access to 116th.
No one really knows what’s in this easement agreement, not even the litigants here.
Still, Columbia isn’t unjustified as unfortunate as this situation is. There are regular attempts to demonstrate on this issue by roving groups of protestors.
But Columbia may not have to demonstrate reasonability to anyone, assuming the City did indeed sell Columbia an easement.
All the public knows comes from the 1950s NYT article and the City Planning report, which suggests Columbia only has to provide public access for utilities under the street. Not pedestrian traffic. Time will tell if this lawsuit opens up discovery regarding what’s in the actual easement.
We will see what comes from the lawsuit.
Between Columbia and NYC money was exchanged for use. Subsequently Columbia was allowed to install locking and closing gates.
Did Columbia lock those gates on their own or ask for permission to do so or did the city ask them to. close the gates? Who is under control of access (seems like it is Columbia). Otherwise you go to your local officials and tell them to give notice to open the gates, there would be no need to discuss with Columbia.
Once this is resolved, clear signs should be erected that state this is a public right of way. So there is no misunderstanding with Columbia or their security.
The big mistake was to allow the gates in the first place, in emergency situation Columbia should have asked permission for a temporary barrier with a duration and if it needed to be extended be required to ask for that permission.
The issue now you have with the courts is Columbia could try to argue adverse possession. The gates have certainly been there long enough and they have effectively been policing that area. Hopefully they have never been given absolute control (by not intervening) and not been acting unilaterally.
I live in the area and it is pain in the neck to get from Amsterdam Avenue to Broadway when all crossings between 114th and 120th are closed. One solution might be to open the W. 116th Street crossing to everyone, but make it necessary to show ID to leave the crossing and enter the campus. One problem with this is that the crossing divides the campus so to get from say Low Library to Butler library, students would have to enter the crossing and then show ID to leave the crossing and get go Butler.
There are no barriers around the crossing – once people enter the gates, there would be no practical way to prevent them from leaving the crossing.
Since they have ID, it’s not too hard to show it when necessary…
Columbia completely botched its “response” to the encampments and protests and now it’s hurting the local community with this ridiculous campus closure. Great job Columbia!!
The premise is wrong. The city gave Columbia 116th Street. Hense why the gates were installed. The City is allowed access for utilities. No one else is guaranteed. Columbia has just been generous for the last 70 years. They don’t have to be.
This is a central issue of the lawsuit and will be determined by the judge. The agreement has been reviewed closely and can be interpreted variously.
Interim President Armstrong said in September that reopening the campus after fall semester began (2024) was a matter of weeks, not months. Recently she said that they were aiming to reopen the campus in February. We shall see.
I don’t see a future in which there won’t be some probability of protests, whether over Gaza or something else. The university’s present position is consistent with campus closure in perpetuity. Ridiculous.
Well, there are eight days left in February…..
Columbia should set up a van service to transport pedestrians between Broadway and Amsterdam Avenue and vice versa. Both avenues are 2 way.
In regards to the city giving the property to columbia
when did that happen?
The gate height I believe violates code. I will look up the permit they should have a permit for it.
What code governs such gates?
The campus closure is wrong for a variety of practical and ethical reasons.
The overwhelming majority of students and alumni we have heard from agree.
As a local community development and advocacy organization, we have established this petition. Please consider signing.
https://chng.it/ft7KnH7bdb
Comments supporting closure of campus ignore the fact that campus has been open to the public for 70 years, through many kinds of protests, without closing gates.
Current “emergency” has lasted 6 consecutive months and most of the past year. Checkpoints create the atmosphere of a fortress instead of a campus.
Gate opening is supported by Councilmember Abreu, Community Board 9 and the overwhelming majority of residents who have voiced opinions.
Harvard Yard remains open to the public, and there are other ways of ensuring security that do less harm to the community at large.
Not sure where people are getting that pedestrians have free access to the Street. The agreement was made between Columbia and the City to have access for utilities and emergencies, not pedestrians. It is only one block people.
It is actually a lot more than a block because you have to walk at least five blocks (including one long one) to get around.
I have enormous sympathy for the petitioners and hope they can find a solution that works for all.
At the same time, I have to wonder how many of the people stridently objecting here were also stridently criticizing Columbia for failing to protect students from the protestors last year. Maybe people could realize that these situations are not simple either/or issues and tone down the stridency a bit.
It is one block but if you actually walk there you will see that the blocks on either side are not through streets, so it’s not just “one block people”.
That is a matter of interpretation. It’s called a pedestrian easement not a utility easement. But access was also requested for NYC employees so they can perform utility maintenance work as needed. Periodically Columbia needs to close the gates and block the streets for graduation/move in and out and the neighborhood understands that but this longstanding closure has to stop.
This appears to be an interesting court case. I hope Gus gets some comments from some local attorneys who might be familiar with land use law. My guess is Columbia will want to see a legal ruling and won’t be opening the walkway before March 5.
I just checked the tax map
there is an active easement called “easement 7.75” the dominant party is NYC. The subservient party cannot block this easement. NYC can give them permission to do so though.
Columbia can ask and if refused probably
erect a fence along it (up to 6ft without permit), they can not on their own block egress. They should have had gates along it on both sides with security control. Too bad it would divide the campus the easement dominates if refused to be able to block it.
Again if NYC said it was ok to block it then it is a different story. NYC decides though.
Columbia has no standing on this, unless they want to try to declare adverse possession and state they took it over. The law on this is fairly clear what is required to achieve that.
I guess someone should let the petitioners know the definition of private property.
The “petitioners” understand the meaning of an easement on property. The land was ceded to Columbia as an easement and is unconditionally accessible by NYC.
Columbia of course can illegally block it without permission. One would have hoped government officials would have resolved this for them instead of suing.
The city should take care of its citizens. Denying access can for example be a violation of Americans with Disabilities Act.
This is a slightly different issue, but I wonder if they can’t at least move the security check inside the gate instead of having that ugly tent and lines of people taking over the sidewalk on Broadway. I have to walk through there at least twice a day, and it’s like running the gauntlet.
This is not a different issue. The tents on the sidewalks are part of the lawsuit as a public nuisance and the reason Jessica Tisch as Police Commissioner is named as a defendant. It’s really quite brazen that Columbia blocks an arguable public easement and then blocks large swaths of NYC sidewalks to do so.
And get those hideous plastic tents that the miserable security guards squat inside, OFF the PUBLIC sidewalks !! They obstruct the public way and are an eyesore.
Definitely better that the guards should be unsheltered, right?
Columbia arrogantly declares that it will decide when to open 116 street, a public thoroughfare. Someday the walls around Columbia will fall and the people will rejoice. (I am an alumnus.)
As a Columbia affiliate who walks through the 116 St gates almost daily, I can say it’s a pain in the ass even for us. I wish the plaintiffs well, but frankly, this is almost purely an issue of private property, which is pretty sacrosanct in capitalist society, so I’m not very optimistic that Columbia will be forced to reopen College Walk.