From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cantor Fitzgerald Sec. v. Port Auth. of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 13, 2013
107 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-06-13

CANTOR FITZGERALD SECURITIES, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. The PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Defendant–Respondent.

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC (Jonathan G. Cedarbaum of the bar of the District of Columbia, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellants. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York (Gregory Silbert of counsel), for respondent.



Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC (Jonathan G. Cedarbaum of the bar of the District of Columbia, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellants. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York (Gregory Silbert of counsel), for respondent.
ACOSTA, J.P., SAXE, RENWICK, RICHTER, CLARK, JJ.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered December 4, 2012, which, upon renewal of defendant's motion for partial summary judgment and to set aside a liability verdict, granted defendant's motion, finding that defendant was entitled to governmental immunity from plaintiffs' claims, dismissed the complaint, and denied plaintiffs' cross motion for renewal, deemed an appeal from judgment, entered February 26, 2013, dismissing the action, and so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the liability issue through a Steering Committee appointed by the trial court to represent the interests of the numerous plaintiffs and their actions, including the Cantor plaintiffs, on the liability aspect of the bifurcated trials. Indeed, Cantor's counsel was appointed a member of the Steering Committee. The issue of defendant's liability in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, and whether the defendant had a viable governmental immunity defense ( see generallyMcKinney's Uncons. Laws of N.Y. §§ 7101, 7106 [2000]; N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 32:1–157, 1–162 [West 2011] ), was fully litigated ( see Matter of World Trade Ctr. Bombing Litig., 3 Misc.3d 440, 442, 776 N.Y.S.2d 713 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2004], affd.13 A.D.3d 66, 784 N.Y.S.2d 869 [1st Dept. 2004], revd. 17 N.Y.3d 428, 933 N.Y.S.2d 164, 957 N.E.2d 733 [2011],cert. denied sub nom. Ruiz v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 133, 184 L.Ed.2d 28 [2012] ) and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to preclude further argument on the issue ( see generally Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v. Lopez, 46 N.Y.2d 481, 485, 414 N.Y.S.2d 308, 386 N.E.2d 1328 [1979];Matter of Moore v. Evans, 95 A.D.3d 579, 944 N.Y.S.2d 92 [1st Dept. 2012] ). Moreover, the Court of Appeals' reversal of the interlocutory judgment of liability ( see17 N.Y.3d 428, 933 N.Y.S.2d 164, 957 N.E.2d 733 [2011] ) warranted dismissal of the instant action ( see generally Nash v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 102 A.D.3d 420, 959 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept. 2013];McMahon v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 101, 483 N.Y.S.2d 228 [1st Dept. 1984] ). Plaintiffs' argument that the governmental immunity issue presented a federal law issue in light of the bi-state compact which gives rise to the Port Authority's existence was considered by the Court of Appeals on a motion to reargue ( see18 N.Y.3d 898, 940 N.Y.S.2d 208, 963 N.E.2d 784 [2012] ), and reargument was denied.


Summaries of

Cantor Fitzgerald Sec. v. Port Auth. of N.Y.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 13, 2013
107 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

Cantor Fitzgerald Sec. v. Port Auth. of N.Y.

Case Details

Full title:CANTOR FITZGERALD SECURITIES, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. The PORT…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Jun 13, 2013

Citations

107 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
967 N.Y.S.2d 711
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 4441

Citing Cases

Emerald Investors Ltd. v. Toms

Defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to the action. He offered no more…