In Matter of New York Pub. Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign v. Reuter (293 AD2d 160, 739 NYS2d 127 [2002], the petitioners argued that, by laying off and limiting staff at subway station token booths, the NYCTA was effectuating a "partial closing" of a subway station, triggering the public hearing requirement of Public Authorities Law 1205 (5). The NYCTA posited a very restrictive interpretation of Public Authorities Law 1205 (5), one that would limit the statute's applicability to only those circumstances where there was a complete or partial closing of access to a subway station. The NYCTA argued that the Public Authorities Law 1205 (5) hearing requirement was not triggered by a reduction in staffing at the subway station token booths, because of the availability of high entrance/high exit turnstiles at the affected subway stations for access into the stations. (New York Pub. Interest Research Group v. Reuter, 293 AD2d at 163-165.) The First Department rejected the NYCTA's restrictive interpretation of Public Authorities Law 1205 (5), and held that "the notice, hearing and board approval requirements of Public Authorities Law 1205 (5) were intended to be applicable where, as here, token booth closings are contemplated by the TA." (New York Pub. Interest Research Group v. Reuter, 293 AD2d at 168.) In New York Pub. Interest Research Group v. Reuter, the First Department held that "Public Authorities Law 1205 (5) is a remedial statute which should not be subject to unduly restrictive construction." (293 AD2d at 165.) Instead, the statute should be "interpreted broadly and 'should be liberally construed to carry out the reform intended and spread its beneficial effects as widely as possible.'" (New York Pub. Interest Research Group v. Reuter, 293 AD2d at 166).