From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Best-Simpson v. New York City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1995
221 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Summary

rejecting argument that Inspector General's office is a "separate and distinct entity" from the MTA under the Public Authorities Law

Summary of this case from Anemone v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority

Opinion

November 13, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the appellants' motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action is granted.

We disagree with the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority Office of the Inspector General (hereinafter the OIG), is a separate and distinct entity from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the MTA). Public Authorities Law § 1279 (1) states, in relevant part, "There is hereby created in the metropolitan transportation authority an office of metropolitan transportation authority inspector general" (emphasis supplied). The legislative history of this provision establishes that it was proposed to establish " within the * * * (MTA) an inspector general's office responsible for investigating * * * allegations of fraud and abuse" (Governor's mem, L 1983, ch 427, 1983 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 2771; emphasis supplied). Thus, despite the statutory requirement that the OIG submit its annual report to the Governor and Legislature rather than to the MTA Board (Public Authorities Law § 1279), and despite the OIG appearing by separate counsel in the instant proceeding, given the plain meaning of the language of Public Authorities Law § 1279 (1), we find that the OIG is part of the MTA for the purpose of the one year and 30-day Statute of Limitations applicable to that agency (Public Authorities Law § 1276). Therefore, since employees of the OIG are employees of the MTA for this purpose, the Statute of Limitations applicable to the MTA is applicable to the defendant Jeanette Woloszyn who was sued solely in her former, official capacity as an employee of the OIG. Thompson, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Best-Simpson v. New York City Transit Auth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 1995
221 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

rejecting argument that Inspector General's office is a "separate and distinct entity" from the MTA under the Public Authorities Law

Summary of this case from Anemone v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority
Case details for

Best-Simpson v. New York City Transit Auth

Case Details

Full title:JANE BEST-SIMPSON et al., Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 13, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 398 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 535

Citing Cases

Brown v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth.

ECF No. 42 at 9. However, courts within this district have found the MTA Inspector General to be an MTA…

Anemone v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority

(See Compl. ¶¶ 8-10) Sansverie, as MTA Inspector General, is also an MTA employee, as the Public Authorities…