New York City Transit Authority subject to local laws that do not interfere with its providing transportation
Tang v New York City Tr. Auth., 55 AD3d 720
Kim Tang sued the NYC Transit Authority to recover damages for alleged retaliation by the Transit Authority in violation of the New York City Administrative Code barring unlawful discrimination.
Supreme Court dismissed Tang’s complaint based on the Authority’s claim that Public Authorities Law §1266(8) exempted it from all local laws affecting its activities and operations.
Tang appealed and the Appellate Division overturned the lower court’s ruling, holding that Section 1266(8) did not exempt the Authority from all local laws but only those laws "conflicting with [Title 11 of the Public Authorities Law] or any rule or regulation" of the Transit Authority.
Section 1266(8) authorizes the Authority to “do all things it deems necessary, convenient or desirable to manage, control and direct the maintenance and operation of transportation facilities, equipment or real property operated by or under contract, lease or other arrangement with the authority and its subsidiaries, and New York city transit authority and its subsidiaries.”
Tang v New York City Tr. Auth., 55 AD3d 720
Kim Tang sued the NYC Transit Authority to recover damages for alleged retaliation by the Transit Authority in violation of the New York City Administrative Code barring unlawful discrimination.
Supreme Court dismissed Tang’s complaint based on the Authority’s claim that Public Authorities Law §1266(8) exempted it from all local laws affecting its activities and operations.
Tang appealed and the Appellate Division overturned the lower court’s ruling, holding that Section 1266(8) did not exempt the Authority from all local laws but only those laws "conflicting with [Title 11 of the Public Authorities Law] or any rule or regulation" of the Transit Authority.
Section 1266(8) authorizes the Authority to “do all things it deems necessary, convenient or desirable to manage, control and direct the maintenance and operation of transportation facilities, equipment or real property operated by or under contract, lease or other arrangement with the authority and its subsidiaries, and New York city transit authority and its subsidiaries.”
Citing Bogdan v New York City Tr. Auth., 2005 US Dist LEXIS 9317, the Appellate Division concluded that language of Section 1266(8) indicates the Legislature “did not intend to prohibit the application of all Local Laws to the [Transit Authority], but only such laws that interfered with the accomplishment of its transportation purposes."
As compliance with the provisions in the New York City Administrative Code against unlawful discrimination in employment would not interfere with the function and purpose of the Transit Authority, the court vacated the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Tang’s petition.
The full text of the decisions is set out on the Internet at:
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07903.htm