Opinion
10347 Index 155686/17
11-14-2019
The Port Authority Law Department, New York (Allen F. Acosta of counsel), for Appellant. Law Offices of Stefano A. Filippazzo, P.C., Brooklyn (Louis A. Badolato of counsel), for Respondent.
The Port Authority Law Department, New York (Allen F. Acosta of counsel), for Appellant.
Law Offices of Stefano A. Filippazzo, P.C., Brooklyn (Louis A. Badolato of counsel), for Respondent.
Gische, J.P., Webber, Kern, Moulton, JJ.
"The Port Authority is an interstate compact agency and as such is not subject to New York legislation governing ‘internal operations’... unless both New York and New Jersey have enacted legislation providing that the same is applicable to the Port Authority" ( Matter of Lopez v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 171 A.D.3d 500, 501, 98 N.Y.S.3d 35 [1st Dept. 2019] ). "However, the Port Authority, ‘albeit bistate, is subject to New York's laws involving health and safety, insofar as its activities may externally affect the public’ " ( id. , quoting Matter of Agesen v. Catherwood , 26 N.Y.2d 521, 525, 311 N.Y.S.2d 886, 260 N.E.2d 525 [1970] ). More particularly, courts have repeatedly held that the Port Authority is subject to New York Labor Law (see e.g. O'Brien v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 29 N.Y.3d 27, 52 N.Y.S.3d 68, 74 N.E.3d 307 [2017] ; Nolan v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 162 A.D.3d 488, 78 N.Y.S.3d 333 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Jerez v. Tishman Constr. Corp. of N.Y. , 118 A.D.3d 617, 989 N.Y.S.2d 465 [1st Dept. 2014] ; Verdon v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 111 A.D.3d 580, 977 N.Y.S.2d 4 [1st Dept. 2013] ; Sferrazza v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. , 8 A.D.3d 53, 777 N.Y.S.2d 645 [1st Dept. 2004] ).
Contrary to the Port Authority's interpretation of Matter of Malverty v. Waterfront Commn. of N.Y. Harbor , 71 N.Y.2d 977, 529 N.Y.S.2d 67, 524 N.E.2d 421 [1988], the Court of Appeals did not, in that case, overrule its holding in Agesen .