Mathewson v. New York State Thruway Authority
| Decision Date | 05 July 1960 |
| Citation | 204 N.Y.S.2d 904,11 A.D.2d 782 |
| Parties | Douglas E. MATHEWSON, Albert Hopkins, Timothy J. Mahoney and Frederick Mortati, Respondents-Appellants, v. NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., for appellant-respondent, Julius L. Sackman, Albany, of counsel.
Timothy J. Mahoney, New York City, for respondent-appellants.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, CHRIST and BRENNAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to compel defendant, the New York State Thruway Authority, to prohibit the use of its Thruway by trucks, buses, and tractor-trailers through the Village of Pelham Manor during the hours between eight o'clock in the evening and eight o'clock in the morning, the parties cross appeal: $The defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated January 20, 1960, as denies its motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The plaintiffs appeal from so much of the same order as denies their motion for a temporary injunction enjoining the defendant from permitting commercial vehicles to operate over the thruway in the said Village during said hours.
Order insofar as appealed from by defendant, reversed without costs, and its motion to dismiss the complaint granted.
Appeal by plaintiffs from said order insofar as it denies their motion for a temporary injunction, dismissed without costs. Such appeal is academic in view of the granting of defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
The New York State Thruway Authority is an agency of the State and may be sued only as the Legislature permits (Easley v. New York State Thruway Authority, 1 N.Y.2d 374, 153 N.Y.S.2d 28). There is no legislative dispensation which permits an action in equity against the Authority in the Supreme Court of the State of New York at a term held in Westchester County. The fact that the lack of such legislative permission may result in the plaintiffs' not being able to obtain an injunction in any court, even though the State has waived the Authority's immunity from suit, is not decisive (Psaty v. Duryea, 306 N.Y. 413, 118 N.E.2d 584; Breen v. Mortgage Commission of State of New York, 285 N.Y. 425, 35 N.E.2d 25; Smith v. State of New York, 227 N.Y. 405, 125 N.E. 841, 13...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glen v. Rockefeller
...N.E.2d 475, 478--479; Niagara Fulls Power Co. v. White, 292 N.Y. 472, 479, 55 N.E.2d 742, 745; see also, Mathewson v. New York State Thruway Authority, 11 A.D.2d 782, 204 N.Y.S.2d 904, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 788, 215 N.Y.S.2d 86, 174 N.E.2d 754). Similarly, the Governor has been held to be free fro......
-
Dennison v. State, 42368
...depreciation of his property due to the noise of cars and trucks passing on the highway. (See, e.g., Mathewson v. New York State Thruway Auth., 11 A.D.2d 782, 204 N.Y.S.2d 904, (2d Dept.), affd. 9 N.Y.2d 788, 215 N.Y.S.2d 86, 174 N.E.2d 754; Bennett v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 181 N.Y. 431, 74 N.......
-
Celebrity Studios, Inc. v. Civetta Excavating Inc.
...who are subjected to noise on a newly constructed highway where no part of their property has been taken. Mathewson v. New York State Thruway Authority, 11 A.D.2d 728, 204 N.Y.S.2d 904, affd. 9 N.Y.2d 788, 215 N.Y.S.2d 86, 174 N.E.2d 754; Bennett v. Long Island Railroad Co., 181 N.Y. 431, 7......
-
Hunterfly Realty Corp. v. State
...v. State, 207 Misc. 894, 900, 141 N.Y.S.2d 207, 215, affd. 2 A.D.2d 195, 154 N.Y.S.2d 132; see also Mathewson v. New York State Thruway Authority, 11 A.D.2d 782, 204 N.Y.S.2d 904; Psaty v. Duryea, 306 N.Y. 413, 118 N.E.2d 584, Although two individuals are named as co-defendants here togethe......