Opinion
October 26, 1970
In an action submitted to this court upon an agreed statement of facts pursuant to CPLR 3222, judgment is granted: (1) declaring that plaintiff, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, acted within the scope of its authority under section 1277 Pub. Auth. of the Public Authorities Law in determining and certifying the costs to defendant, the County of Nassau, for the four periods involved; (2) awarding $871,609.74 to plaintiff against defendant, together with such interest as is authorized by law; (3) declaring that the statutes creating and governing plaintiff are constitutionally valid; (4) declaring that defendant is liable for certain expenses from January 20, 1966, since said section 1277, as amended in 1966 effective May 23, 1966 (L. 1966, ch. 415, §§ 10, 12), was retroactive to January 20, 1966; (5) declaring that defendant is responsible for liability insurance and for the expense of flagging crews whose operations were in connection with the safety of employees of contractors engaged in painting or other maintenance work on the passenger stations; and (6) declaring that defendant is not entitled to a credit or offset for the alleged liens or the additional revenues received by the Long Island Rail Road Company as a result of the increase of the fares. No costs are awarded. In our opinion, the statutes governing plaintiff are constitutionally valid and plaintiff acted within the scope of its authority. We are of the view that the cost of liability insurance and the expense of flagging crews whose operations were in connection with the safety of employees of contractors engaged in painting or other maintenance work on the passenger stations were items within the total cost to plaintiff and its subsidiary corporations of operation, maintenance and use of passenger stations in Nassau County ( Metropolitan Transp. Auth. v. City of New York, 32 A.D.2d 197, mod. in other respects 26 N.Y.2d 817). Subdivision (b) of paragraph 5 of the 1964 and 1965 agreements between defendant and the Long Island Rail Road Company provides: "Any legislative, executive or administrative enactment or action by any Federal, State or other governmental body, and any agreement entered into between or among the Railroad and/or the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and/or any Federal, State or other governmental body pursuant to or resulting from any such legislative, executive or administrative enactment or action, affecting the status of the Railroad after August 12, 1966, and inconsistent or in conflict with the aforesaid lien shall, to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict, take precedence over and supersede said lien." In our opinion, the enforcement of the liens would be inconsistent with the actions of the Legislature. The liens did not mature within the provisions of the contract between the Long Island Rail Road Company and the defendant. If, as a result of plaintiff's receipt of payments under section 1277 Pub. Auth. of the Public Authorities Law and the Long Island Rail Road Company's increased fares, the overall financial condition of plaintiff or the Long Island Rail Road Company is such as to permit a decrease in future station operation certifications or the Long Island Rail Road Company's fares, plaintiff can implement that course of action. That, however, is a matter left to plaintiff's discretion. We do not think that defendant is entitled to an offset as a result of plaintiff's approval of the Long Island Rail Road Company's fare increase. Hopkins, Acting P.J., Latham, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.