Leeds v. Metropolitan Transp. Authority

• Decision Date: 09 July 1982
• Citation: 452 N.Y.S.2d 551,114 Misc.2d 797
• Parties: Oliver LEEDS, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and New York City Transit Authority, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 551

452 N.Y.S.2d 551

114 Misc.2d 797

Oliver LEEDS, Plaintiff, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and New York City Transit Authority, Defendant.

Civil Court of the City of New York Special Term, Part I.

July 9, 1982.

LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae, New York City (Thomas G. Rohback, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Richard K. Bernard, Brooklyn (James P. McMahon and Walter J. McCarroll, Brooklyn, of counsel), for defendant.

HAROLD TOMPKINS, Judge:

On this motion to dismiss the complaint is raised an issue apparently unresolved to date by any trial court in the City of New York or any appellate court of this State. Are Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter "MTA") and the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter "TA") required to pay refunds, equal to token expenditures, to a passenger for alleged late service and for unsanitary conditions on the routes he travels?

The relief requested by plaintiff on a contractual theory in this action must be denied for the reasons set forth herein.

Plaintiff Oliver Leeds (hereinafter "Leeds") travels each work day on the "GG" trains. During the period encompassed by his complaint, the trains have been admittedly late, the system has been permeated with graffiti, there has been a lack of trash removal, bathroom facilities and benches and often a lack of personal safety ¹.

Leeds seeks $15 as a refund for token purchases due to "breach of contract" ². Leeds cites three recent cases that have found contractual liability on the part of the Long Island Railroad and the Consolidated Rail Corp. (Conrail), to passengers for late and faulty service. (See Dominianni v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 110 Misc.2d 929, 443 N.Y.S.2d 334 Kessel v. Long Island R. R. Co., 107 Misc.2d 1067, 436 N.Y.S.2d 684 Javeline v. Long Island R. R. Co., 106 Misc.2d 814, 435 N.Y.S.2d 513 ).

This Court does not choose to follow the precedent of those cases. Furthermore, Conrail and the Long Island Railroad provide traditional railroad service in interstate commerce. United Transportation Union v. Long Island R. R. Co., --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 1349, 71 L.Ed.2d 547 (1982) ³.

The TA is a public benefit corporation. General Construction Law § 66(4) provides:

"A public benefit corporation is a corporation organized to construct or operate a public improvement wholly or partly within the state, the profits from which enure to the benefit of this or other states or to the people thereof".

Moreover, there is no question that the TA and MTA are engaged in a government function (see Sections 1202 and 1266 of the Public Authorities Law) ⁴. As such, they are in the same posture as the State, City or other municipality providing essential services.

The Court of Appeals has recently addressed the issue of whether a cause of action exists for failure of a municipality to provide essential services. In Motyka v. City of Amsterdam, 15 N.Y.2d 134, 256 N.Y.S.2d 595, 204 N.E.2d 635 (1965), the Court stated "... we have never gone so far as to hold that a general liability exists to the public for civil damage in event of failure to supply adequate police or fire protection". 15 N.Y.2d at 139, 256 N.Y.S.2d 595, 204 N.E.2d 635 (see also Weiner v. MTA, 55 N.Y.2d 175, 448 N.Y.S.2d 141, 433 N.E.2d 124 ).

The same sound policy reasons that dictated the result in Motyka v. City of Amsterdam, supra, control here.

Accordingly, the Court cannot in good conscience impose a cause of action for breach of contract of carriage against these defendants.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.

1 Plaintiff asserts (1) lack of police and/or electronic surveillance to insure passenger safety; (2) graffiti; (3) filth; (4) unreadable maps; (5) dirty windows; ...