Ray v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ray v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

2020 NY Slip Op 3459, 184 A.D.3d 476, 124 N.Y.S.3d 189

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

DecidedJune 18, 2020

Docket11667 24518/14E

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 3459 (Ray v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.) 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

Ray v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2020 NY Slip Op 3459, 184 A.D.3d 476, 124 N.Y.S.3d 189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Ray v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (2020 NY Slip Op 03459)

Ray v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

2020 NY Slip Op 03459

Decided on June 18, 2020

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 18, 2020
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Webber, González, JJ.

11667 24518/14E

[*1] Jasmine Ray, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Law Department, New York (Karla Denalli of counsel), for appellant.

David J. Hernandez & Associates, Brooklyn (David J. Hernandez of counsel), and Richard H. Gottesman, Brooklyn, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered March 26, 2019, which denied defendant's (the Port Authority) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly rejected the Port Authority's arguments that, as a bistate entity created by a federally approved compact, it cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740 (New York Whistleblower Laws). The Port Authority is "subject to New York's laws involving health and safety, insofar as its activities may externally affect the public" (Matter of Agesen v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 521, 525 [1970]; see also Wortham v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 177 AD3d 481 [1st Dept 2019]). The express purpose of Labor Law § 740 is to protect public health and safety (see id. § 740[2]). As we recently ruled, "The Compact Clause of the United Stated Constitution is not implicated by the application of such New York workplace safety statutes to [a] Port Authority work site located in New York" (Rosario v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 179 AD3d 516, 517 [1st Dept 2020]).

We have considered the Port Authority's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 18, 2020

CLERK

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

Ray v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (2020 NY Slip Op 03459)

Ray v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

2020 NY Slip Op 03459

Decided on June 18, 2020

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 18, 2020
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Webber, González, JJ.

11667 24518/14E

[*1] Jasmine Ray, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Law Department, New York (Karla Denalli of counsel), for appellant.

David J. Hernandez & Associates, Brooklyn (David J. Hernandez of counsel), and Richard H. Gottesman, Brooklyn, for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered March 26, 2019, which denied defendant's (the Port Authority) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly rejected the Port Authority's arguments that, as a bistate entity created by a federally approved compact, it cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740 (New York Whistleblower Laws). The Port Authority is "subject to New York's laws involving health and safety, insofar as its activities may externally affect the public" (Matter of Agesen v Catherwood, 26 NY2d 521, 525 [1970]; see also Wortham v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 177 AD3d 481 [1st Dept 2019]). The express purpose of Labor Law § 740 is to protect public health and safety (see id. § 740[2]). As we recently ruled, "The Compact Clause of the United Stated Constitution is not implicated by the application of such New York workplace safety statutes to [a] Port Authority work site located in New York" (Rosario v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 179 AD3d 516, 517 [1st Dept 2020]).

We have considered the Port Authority's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 18, 2020

CLERK

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2020 NY Slip Op 3459, 184 A.D.3d 476, 124 N.Y.S.3d 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ray-v-port-auth-of-ny-nj-nyappdiv-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack