Sullivan v. the Port of New York Authority

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Sullivan v. the Port of New York Authority

46 A.2d 390, 134 N.J.L. 124, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 168

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 1, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 46 A.2d 390 (Sullivan v. the Port of New York Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sullivan v. the Port of New York Authority, 46 A.2d 390, 134 N.J.L. 124, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 168 (N.J. 1946).

Pincite

Opinions

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

Donald Sullivan seeks a writ of certiorari to review proceedings resulting in his discharge as traffic officer *125 in the defendant’s employ. His application made to Mr. Justice Colie was denied.

It was said in Howell v. Port of New York Authority, 34 Fed. Supp. 797 (at p. 801): “The Port Authority, a bi-state corporation (Helvering, &c., v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405; 58 S. Ct. 969; 83 L. Ed. 1427), is a joint or common agency of the States of New York and New Jersey. It performs governmental functions which project beyond state lines, and it is immune from suit without its consent. Voorhis et al. v. Cornell Contracting Corp. and Port of New York Authority et al., 170 Misc. 907; 10 N. Y. S. (2d) 378; LeBeau Piping Corp. v. City of New York and Port of New York Authority et al., 170 Misc. 644; 9 N. Y. S. (2d) 853; Pink, &c., v. Port of New York Authority et at., Supreme Court, New York County, February 3d, 1938.”

Judge Ackerson in Miller v. Port of New York Authority, 18 N. J. Mis. R. 601, in an exhaustive and scholarly opinion, arrived at the same result. The question, however, is not necessary to a determination of this case.

After carefully examining the record of the action taken by the Port of New York Authority in discharging Sullivan, wo are satisfied that the Authority acted with duo propriety and that the dismissal was in all respects proper.

The application will be denied, with costs.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

Donald Sullivan seeks a writ of certiorari to review proceedings resulting in his discharge as traffic officer *125 in the defendant’s employ. His application made to Mr. Justice Colie was denied.

It was said in Howell v. Port of New York Authority, 34 Fed. Supp. 797 (at p. 801): “The Port Authority, a bi-state corporation (Helvering, &c., v. Gerhardt, 304 U. S. 405; 58 S. Ct. 969; 83 L. Ed. 1427), is a joint or common agency of the States of New York and New Jersey. It performs governmental functions which project beyond state lines, and it is immune from suit without its consent. Voorhis et al. v. Cornell Contracting Corp. and Port of New York Authority et al., 170 Misc. 907; 10 N. Y. S. (2d) 378; LeBeau Piping Corp. v. City of New York and Port of New York Authority et al., 170 Misc. 644; 9 N. Y. S. (2d) 853; Pink, &c., v. Port of New York Authority et at., Supreme Court, New York County, February 3d, 1938.”

Judge Ackerson in Miller v. Port of New York Authority, 18 N. J. Mis. R. 601, in an exhaustive and scholarly opinion, arrived at the same result. The question, however, is not necessary to a determination of this case.

After carefully examining the record of the action taken by the Port of New York Authority in discharging Sullivan, wo are satisfied that the Authority acted with duo propriety and that the dismissal was in all respects proper.

The application will be denied, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.2d 390, 134 N.J.L. 124, 1946 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-the-port-of-new-york-authority-nj-1946.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack