When a federal judge last month ruled that New York violated federal laws because it lacked wheelchair-accessible taxis, disabilities advocates celebrated a major victory.

The December opinion by Manhattan federal judge George Daniels may have set a new standard for what kind of municipal services in New York and other cities fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Since every city is organized in a different way, it is difficult to name specific services or agencies that would be affected. But applied broadly, Judge Daniels' taxi ruling could be applied to other city agencies that are active regulators, said Robert Dinerstein, a professor at American University's law school.

In his December opinion, Judge Daniels found that New York City's taxi authority violated Title II, section A of the ADA because the authority has an active regulatory role in maintaining and overseeing the taxi fleet -- thus acting as a public entity proving a public service.

By finding that the taxi authority qualified as performing a public service, Dinerstein said, the judge potentially expanded the definition of what constitutes a public service by a city agency or policy for purposes of the ADA.

The decision could have ramification beyond New York because it recognizes that licensing of medallions is considered a program or activity of a public entity, he said.

"While you could say that not every city does the licensing of taxis the way New York does, it certainly could be analogized to other situations where a city agency is either regulating what's going on or, like here, where you could not legitimately run a taxi unless you went through the process," Dinerstein said.

This week, the judge upheld that opinion, and denied a motion by New York's Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) to freeze his order. The city has also filed a notice of appeal with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Daniels ordered New York City to create a plan to improve access and -- pending his approval of such a plan -- required that any new taxis added to the fleet be wheelchair accessible.

The ruling is likely to cause an additional headache for lawmakers in Albany who have been hashing out legislation to address the New York taxi issue.

In his at-times indignant opinion, Daniels said the TLC's policies discriminated against the handicapped and cited the fact that only 232 of the city's 13,237 cabs are wheelchair-accessible.

"The TLC's exercise of its regulatory authority alone has created the discriminatory effects on disabled riders who require the use of wheelchairs," Daniels wrote.

The TLC disputed that interpretation and maintains it is not subject to the ADA, and that its role is more limited to acts such as dispensing taxi medallions.

"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision because the ADA specifically exempts taxicabs from having to be wheelchair accessible," Robin Binder, of the New York City Law Department, said in a statement. She said the city is "considering the next steps to take in court in light of this ruling."

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GETS INVOLVED

The New York case was also notable because of the involvement of the U.S. Justice Department, which intervened against the TLC in October.

It is an illustration of how the Justice Department under the Obama administration has been aggressively pushing an expansion of the ADA in federal court, said Samuel Bagenstos, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and the former U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. "It's a strategy that extends beyond taxi cabs and transportation issues to the entire sweep of the ADA," he said.

The case is Christopher Noel et al v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 11-00237.

(Reporting By Basil Katz)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal