Opinion
11667 Index 24518/14E
06-18-2020
Jasmine RAY, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY, Defendant–Appellant.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Law Department, New York (Karla Denalli of counsel), for appellant. David J. Hernandez & Associates, Brooklyn (David J. Hernandez of counsel), and Richard H. Gottesman, Brooklyn, for respondent.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Law Department, New York (Karla Denalli of counsel), for appellant.
David J. Hernandez & Associates, Brooklyn (David J. Hernandez of counsel), and Richard H. Gottesman, Brooklyn, for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Mazzarelli, Webber, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J.), entered March 26, 2019, which denied defendant's (the Port Authority) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court correctly rejected the Port Authority's arguments that, as a bistate entity created by a federally approved compact, it cannot be held liable under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740 (New York Whistleblower Laws). The Port Authority is "subject to New York's laws involving health and safety, insofar as its activities may externally affect the public" ( Matter of Agesen v. Catherwood, 26 N.Y.2d 521, 525, 311 N.Y.S.2d 886, 260 N.E.2d 525 [1970] ; see also Wortham v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 177 A.D.3d 481, 110 N.Y.S.3d 539 [1st Dept. 2019] ). The express purpose of Labor Law § 740 is to protect public health and safety (see id. § 740[2] ). As we recently ruled, "The Compact Clause of the United Stated Constitution is not implicated by the application of such New York workplace safety statutes to [a] Port Authority work site located in New York" ( Rosario v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 179 A.D.3d 516, 517, 114 N.Y.S.3d 219 [1st Dept. 2020] ).
We have considered the Port Authority's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.