Moroney v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

• Decision Date: 26 December 1966
• Citation: 52 Misc.2d 424,276 N.Y.S.2d 362
• Parties: Thomas A. MORONEY, Plaintiff, v. The WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 362

276 N.Y.S.2d 362

52 Misc.2d 424

Thomas A. MORONEY, Plaintiff, v. The WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I.

Dec. 26, 1966.

Rothbart, Rothstein & Panken, New York City, Heyman Rothbart, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

Wm. P. Sirignano, New York City, Exec. Dir. & Gen. Counsel of Waterfront Com. of N.Y. Harbor, Irving Malcham and Stuart Maher, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

OWEN McGIVERN, Justice.

Motion by the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor to dismiss the complaint in an action for false arrest and defamation is granted and the complaint is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As a joint agency of the States of New York and New Jersey created under compact between these states (N.Y.Laws 1953, c. 882 (McKinney's Unconsolidated Laws, § 9801 et seq.); N.J.Laws 1953, c. 202 (N.J.S.A. 32:23--1 et seq.)) and absent the imposition of liability under the terms pursuant to which Congress consented to the Compact (Act of August 12, 1953, c. 407, 67 Stat. 541) the Commission is immune to suit without express legislative consent. The United States Supreme Court has noted that 'The conclusion that there has been a waiver of immunity will not be lightly inferred' (Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission, 359 U.S. 275, 276, 79 S.Ct. 785, 787, 3 L.Ed.2d 804). A statutory conferral of the right to sue and be sued does not constitute a blanket waiver of immunity with respect to tortious acts (Kirkman v. Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park, 200 App.Div. 870, 193 N.Y.S. 60; Dietrich v. Palisades Interstate Park Commission, 114 Misc. 425, 187 N.Y.S. 454; The Onteora, D.C., 298 F. 553). The cases relied upon by plaintiff do not support his position, inasmuch as they involved specific statutory provision for suits in tort. In Strang v. State, 206 Misc. 734, 134 N.Y.S.2d 871, it was § 361--b of the Public Authorities Law; in Cirincione v. State, 50 Misc.2d 18, 269 N.Y.S.2d 329, it was sections 469 and 469--a of the same law. In Town of Amherst v. Niagara Frontier Port Authority, 19 A.D.2d 107, 241 N.Y.S.2d 247, the court specifically found that the defendant was 'not an arm or agency of the State. It is an agency of local subdivisions of government (cities and towns) performing municipal functions * * *' (19 A.D.2d at 110, 241 N.Y.S.2d at 251). In concluding as it does, the court expresses no opinion as to the liability of the individuals...