Washington Heights Optical, Inc. v. Port Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Washington Heights Optical, Inc. v. Port Authority

70 A.D.3d 574, 893 N.Y.S.2d 872

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.3d 574 (Washington Heights Optical, Inc. v. Port 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

Washington Heights Optical, Inc. v. Port Authority, 70 A.D.3d 574, 893 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered July 27, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion for a Yellowstone injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff brought this action to enjoin the Port Authority from terminating its lease (First Natl. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Ctr., 21 NY2d 630 [1968]). The consent of the states of New York and New Jersey to suits against the Authority (McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 7101 [L 1950, ch 301, § 1]) does not extend to suits seeking to restrain or enjoin the Authority unless brought by the attorney general of either state (Uncons Laws § 7105 [L 1950, ch 301, § 5] ) and the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action (see Matter of New York City Ch., Inc. of Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn. v Fabber, 73 Misc 2d 859, 864 [1973], affd 41 AD2d 821 [1973]; see also Matter of Lewis v Lefkowitz, 32 Misc 2d 434 [1961]).

While Court of Claims Act § 8 provides an exception to immunity for state agencies acting in a propriety capacity (see Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 511 [1984]), there is no analogous provision governing the Authority, a bistate agency resident in both jurisdictions (Uncons Laws § 7106 [L 1950, ch 301, § 6]).

In view of the foregoing, plaintiffs remaining arguments are academic. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Renwick, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered July 27, 2009, which denied plaintiffs motion for a Yellowstone injunction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff brought this action to enjoin the Port Authority from terminating its lease (First Natl. Stores v Yellowstone Shopping Ctr., 21 NY2d 630 [1968]). The consent of the states of New York and New Jersey to suits against the Authority (McKinney’s Uncons Laws of NY § 7101 [L 1950, ch 301, § 1]) does not extend to suits seeking to restrain or enjoin the Authority unless brought by the attorney general of either state (Uncons Laws § 7105 [L 1950, ch 301, § 5] ) and the courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over this action (see Matter of New York City Ch., Inc. of Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn. v Fabber, 73 Misc 2d 859, 864 [1973], affd 41 AD2d 821 [1973]; see also Matter of Lewis v Lefkowitz, 32 Misc 2d 434 [1961]).

While Court of Claims Act § 8 provides an exception to immunity for state agencies acting in a propriety capacity (see Miller v State of New York, 62 NY2d 506, 511 [1984]), there is no analogous provision governing the Authority, a bistate agency resident in both jurisdictions (Uncons Laws § 7106 [L 1950, ch 301, § 6]).

In view of the foregoing, plaintiffs remaining arguments are academic. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Renwick, DeGrasse and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 574, 893 N.Y.S.2d 872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-heights-optical-inc-v-port-authority-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack