Port Authority v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Port Authority v. City of New York

228 A.D.2d 396, 644 N.Y.2d 734, 644 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7459

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 27, 1996·Published

Opinion

Whether, for purposes of calculating additional rent owing from the Port Authority to the City, inclusion in the Port Authority’s gross income of passenger facility charges (PFC) collected pursuant to 49 USC § 40117 would violate the prohibition against impairment of the use of such revenues in 14 CFR 158.7 (a) is not an issue that the City seeks to arbitrate, and would not become an issue unless and until the Port Authority is required to expend such revenues or the interest earned thereon as additional rent. However, whether such revenues should be included in the definition of gross revenues used to calculate the amount of additional rent due the City from sources other than PFC revenues is clearly an accounting question within the ambit of the parties’ arbitration agreement, and, accordingly, the petition to stay arbitration was properly denied. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Whether, for purposes of calculating additional rent owing from the Port Authority to the City, inclusion in the Port Authority’s gross income of passenger facility charges (PFC) collected pursuant to 49 USC § 40117 would violate the prohibition against impairment of the use of such revenues in 14 CFR 158.7 (a) is not an issue that the City seeks to arbitrate, and would not become an issue unless and until the Port Authority is required to expend such revenues or the interest earned thereon as additional rent. However, whether such revenues should be included in the definition of gross revenues used to calculate the amount of additional rent due the City from sources other than PFC revenues is clearly an accounting question within the ambit of the parties’ arbitration agreement, and, accordingly, the petition to stay arbitration was properly denied. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Port Authority v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 396, 644 N.Y.2d 734, 644 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

228 A.D.2d 396 (Port Authority v. City of New York) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related