The Port Authority cites to cases which appear to define "governmental function" broadly. See Clinger v. New York City Trans. Auth., 650 N.E.2d 855, 856 (N.Y. 1995) (immunity for injuries resulting from storage of construction materials to shield an area of attack for storage was an "overwhelmingly governmental" function); Gasset v. City of New York, 603 N.Y.S.2d 141, 142 (N.Y.App.Div. 1993) (immunity to Port Authority for alleged failure to supply adequate security and prevent heavy objects from being thrown from a restricted area, causing death to plaintiff's decedent);Marilyn S. v. City of New York, 521 N.Y.S.2d 485, 486-87 (N.Y.App.Div. 1987) (negligence in distributing keys enabling an intruder to rape a teacher in a restroom implicated governmental security function). But other cases are less expansive.
An analogous situation is presented by this appeal. Here, the Port Authority's general operating responsibilities at the WTC, like at its other facilities, necessarily included the provision of security for the premises as it was tasked with administering security measures to counter criminal activity (see Gasset v City of New York, 198 AD2d 12, 12 [1st Dept 1993]). This obligation was not limited to the benefit of commercial tenants and their customers, but extended to all who would avail themselves of the WTC facility .
In support of its motion for summary judgment, defendant Transit Authority relies on Weiner v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth. ( 55 N.Y.2d 175) and its progeny (see, e.g., Gasset v. City of New York, 198 A.D.2d 12; Crichlow v. New York City Tr. Auth., 184 A.D.2d 395; Rivera v. New York City Tr. Auth., 184 A.D.2d 417). In the Weiner case, the plaintiff was robbed and slashed on the wrist as she proceeded down the stairway to the platform of the 25th Street subway station after purchasing a token.
The Port Authority's reliance on cases finding that the acts alleged involved a public entity engaged in governmental functions is misplaced. Those cases did not involve the entity's operation of a commercial office building, parking garage, and shopping mall. Rather, they involved, for example, the operation of a bus terminal in Gasset v. City of New York ( 198 AD2d 12 [1st Dept 1993], lv denied 88 NY2d 810), in which the Court, in a brief memorandum decision, stated that the maintenance and operation of the Port Authority bus terminal was a governmental function. The Port Authority's other cases involved safety in public schools in terms of the allocation of police resources ( e.g., Bonner v. City of New York, 73 NY2d 930; Feinsilver v. City of New York, 277 AD2d 199 [2d Dept 2000]; Marilyn S. v. City of New York, 134 AD2d 583 [2d Dept 1987], affd 73 NY2d 910; see also Laura O. v. State of New York, 202 AD2d 559 [2d Dept 1994] [campus security and patrolling in nondormitory building]), a function which has traditionally been governmental, undertaken for the protection and safety of public school children, teachers, and school employees, and which is clearly distinguishable from the alleged negligent security in the WTC's public parking garage.
The Port Authority's reliance on cases finding that the acts alleged involved a public entity engaged in governmental functions is misplaced. Those cases did not involve the entity's operation of a commercial office building, parking garage, and shopping mall. Rather, they involved, for example, the operation of a bus terminal in Gasset v City of New York (198 AD2d 12 [1st Dept 1993], lv denied 88 NY2d 810 [1996]), in which the Court, in a brief memorandum decision, stated that the maintenance and operation of the Port Authority bus terminal was a governmental function. The Port Authority's other cases involved safety in public schools in terms of the allocation of police resources (e.g. Bonner v City of New York, 73 NY2d 930 [1989]; Feinsilver v City of New York, 277 AD2d 199 [2d Dept 2000]; Marilyn S. v City of New York, 134 AD2d 583 [2d Dept 1987], affd 73 NY2d 910 [1989]; see also Laura O. v State of New York, 202 AD2d 559 [2d Dept 1994] [campus security and patrolling in nondormitory building]), a function which has traditionally been governmental, undertaken for the protection and safety of public school children, teachers, and school employees, and which is clearly distinguishable from the alleged negligent security in the WTC's public parking garage.
Those cases did not involve the entity's operation of a commercial office building, parking garage, and shopping mall. Rather, they involved, for example, the operation of a bus terminal in Gasset v. City of New York ( 198 A.D.2d 12 [1st Dept 1993], lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 810), in which the Court, in a brief memorandum decision, stated that the maintenance and operation of the Port Authority bus terminal was a governmental function. The Port Authority's other cases involved safety in public schools in terms of the allocation of police resources ( e.g. Bonner v. City of New York, 73 N.Y.2d 930; Feinsilver v. City of New York, 277 A.D.2d 199 [2d Dept 2000]; Marilyn S. v. City of New York, 134 A.D.2d 583 [2d Dept 1987], affd 73 N.Y.2d 910; see also Lauro O. v. State of New York, 202 A.D.2d 559 [2d Dept 1994] [campus security and patrolling in nondormitory building]), a function which has traditionally been governmental, undertaken for the protection and safety of public school children, teachers, and school employees, and which is clearly distinguishable from the alleged negligent security in the WTC's public parking garage.