Grasso v. New York City Transit Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grasso v. New York City Transit Authority

63 A.D.3d 410, 879 N.Y.S.2d 460

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 2, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 410 (Grasso v. New York City Transit Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grasso v. New York City Transit Authority, 63 A.D.3d 410, 879 N.Y.S.2d 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 8, 2008, which granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner lacks standing to challenge respondents’ determi[411]*411nation to prohibit him from operating a crane on any of their projects or property. To establish standing, he was required to show, in addition to an “injury in fact,” that the injury he asserts “fall[s] within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” (see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004]). Petitioner failed to identify any statutory provision pursuant to which respondents acted in making their determination. Were we to reach the merits of petitioner’s claim, we would find it without validity. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered December 8, 2008, which granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Petitioner lacks standing to challenge respondents’ determi[411]*411nation to prohibit him from operating a crane on any of their projects or property. To establish standing, he was required to show, in addition to an “injury in fact,” that the injury he asserts “fall[s] within the zone of interests or concerns sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” (see New York State Assn. of Nurse Anesthetists v Novello, 2 NY3d 207, 211 [2004]). Petitioner failed to identify any statutory provision pursuant to which respondents acted in making their determination. Were we to reach the merits of petitioner’s claim, we would find it without validity. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 410, 879 N.Y.S.2d 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grasso-v-new-york-city-transit-authority-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack