Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181, Afl-Cio v. City of New York
| Decision Date | 27 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | 2006-08111. |
| Citation | 45 A.D.3d 788,2007 NY Slip Op 09349,846 N.Y.S.2d 336 |
| Parties | AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 1181, AFL-CIO et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants, and METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) LOCAL 100, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants, and METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Appellant. (Action No. 2.) |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it in action No. 1 is granted.
As a condition of the receipt of federal grant money to be used for the operation of bus services, the City of New York executed an agreement on August 8, 1975 (hereinafter the agreement), for the continuation of rights under existing collective bargaining agreements with certain private bus companies and the labor unions representing the employees of those private bus companies. A clause in the agreement (hereinafter the successors and assigns provision) provided that the agreement would be "binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto," and that "[a]ny person, enterprise, body, or agency, whether publicly or privately owned, which shall undertake the management and operation of the transit system, shall agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement."
In 2004 the City announced that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the MTA) would assume responsibility for providing the services provided by the private bus companies upon the expiration of the contracts between those private bus companies and the City. The MTA stated, in writing, that it would not "assume any preexisting liabilities, such as ... pension obligations" of the employees of the private bus companies.
The plaintiff labor unions commenced the instant actions against the MTA, among others, seeking, inter alia, specific performance of the agreement. The plaintiffs in both actions alleged that the MTA was obligated to comply with the terms of the agreement providing for the continuation of rights, including employee pension obligations, in light of the successors and assigns provision.
The MTA moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint in action No. 1 insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court denied the motion. With respect to that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the complaint in action No. 1 pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the Supreme Court held that dismissal was not warranted on that ground, solely "by reason of [MTA's] status as a necessary party," explaining that "MTA's interests are closely related to the interests of the various parties and ... it is directly affected by the outcome of this action in light of its recent takeover of the bus companies." We reverse.
The Supreme Court erred in concluding that MTA was not entitled to dismissal of the complaint in action No. 1 insofar as asserted against it solely "by reason of its status as a necessary party." While the failure to join a necessary party is a ground for dismissal of an action (see CPLR 1003), the Supreme Court did not have such a motion before it (see CPLR...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krys v. Aaron (In re Refco Inc. Sec. Litig.)
...of a contract absent an affirmative assumption of the duties under the contract.” Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181, AFL–CIO v. City of New York, 45 A.D.3d 788, 790, 846 N.Y.S.2d 336 (2d Dept.2007) (citing cases); see also IMG Fragrance Brands, LLC v. Houbigant, Inc., 679 F.Supp.2d 395, ......
-
Victory State Bank v. Emba Hylan, LLC
...1911 Richmond Ave. Assoc., LLC v. G.L.G. Capitol, LLC, 90 A.D.3d at 627, 933 N.Y.S.2d 899 ; Amalgamated Tr. Union Local 1181, AFL–CIO v. City of New York, 45 A.D.3d 788, 790, 846 N.Y.S.2d 336 ; Miles v. Gladstein, 214 A.D.2d 706, 707, 625 N.Y.S.2d 608 ).The plaintiff's remaining contentions......
-
Arcadia Biosciences, Inc. v. Vilmorin & Cie
...of a contract absent an affirmative assumption of the duties under the contract." Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181, AFL-CIO v. City of New York, 45 A.D.3d 788, 846 N.Y.S.2d 336, 338 (2nd Dep't 2007) ; see Todd v. Krolick, 96 A.D.2d 695, 466 N.Y.S.2d 788, 789 (3rd Dep't 1983), aff'd, 62 ......
-
Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc.
...sufficiently close to serve as a predicate for the imposition of successor liability); Amalgamated Tr. Union Local 1181, AFL–CIO v. City of New York, 45 A.D.3d 788, 790, 846 N.Y.S.2d 336 (2d Dep't 2007) (Under New York Law, “an assignee or successor will not be bound to the terms of a contr......
-
IMPOSING SILENCE THROUGH SETTLEMENT: A FIRST-AMENDMENT CASE STUDY OF THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL.
...v. Centor Contractors, Inc., 831 F.2d 1309, 1312-13 (7th Cir. 1987). (212) Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181 v. City of New York, 846 N.Y.S.2d 336, 338 (App. Div. 2007) (citing Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 144 N.E.2d 387, 391 (N.Y. 1957); Hudson Eng'g Assocs. v. Ames Dev.......