Tang v New York City Tr. Auth.
55 A.D.3d 720, 867 N.Y.S.2d 453, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 07903
Appellate Division, Second Department · October 14, 2008
What the court decided
Public Authorities Law section 1266(8) does not exempt the New York City Transit Authority from all local laws, only from those "conflicting with this title or any rule or regulation" of the Transit Authority. Complying with the City Human Rights Law's ban on employment discrimination would not interfere with the Transit Authority's function and purpose, so a City law retaliation claim against it may proceed.
Who won
The plaintiff won the appeal. The Second Department reversed the order dismissing the amended complaint, which included a City law retaliation claim, and denied the Transit Authority's motion to dismiss.
Why it matters for New York City workers
This is the Second Department (Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, among other counties) holding that the Transit Authority is subject to City law claims about employment discrimination. The First Department reached the same conclusion about section 1266(8) in a 2020 subway accessibility case.
Key passage: 55 A.D.3d at 720-21.
Read the decision (PDF) Marked with official reporter pages for citation. The Law Reporting Bureau’s online text does not mark page 721; that marker was placed from the published pagination.
Source of the text: New York State Law Reporting Bureau (official slip opinion) — https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2008/2008_07903.htm. This page summarizes the decision in plain language; the court’s own words are in the opinion below.
Where this case comes up in the guide
The opinion
Red markers such as [55 AD3d 000] show where each page of the official reporter begins. Gray markers such as [*2] are the slip opinion's own page markers.
Tang v New York City Tr. Auth. 2008 NY Slip Op 07903 [55 AD3d 720] October 14, 2008 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Kim Tang, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.
—[55 AD3d 720] [*1] K.C. Okoli, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard Schoolman, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 8-107 (7) to recover damages for retaliation, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated May 22, 2007, as granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint is denied.
The Supreme Court should not have granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint in this action, inter alia, pursuant to Administrative Code § 8-107 (7) to recover damages for retaliation. Contrary to the defendants' contention, Public Authorities Law § 1266 (8) does not exempt the New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the Transit Authority) from all local laws affecting its activities and operations, but rather, only those "conflicting with this title or any rule or regulation" of the Transit Authority. Thus, "[i]t would then appear that the Legislature did not intend to prohibit the application of all local laws to the [Transit Authority], but only of such laws that interfered with the accomplishment of its transportation purposes" (Bogdan v New York City Tr. Auth., 2005 WL 1161812, *4-5, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 9317, *15-16 [2005]). Compliance with the provisions in the Administrative Code against employment discrimination would not [55 AD3d 721] interfere with the function and purpose of the Transit Authority (see Matter of Levy v City Commn. on Human Rights, 85 NY2d 740, 745 [1995]; Terranova v New York City Tr. Auth., 49 AD3d 10, 14-15 [2007]; Huerta v New York City Tr. Auth., [*2]290 AD2d 33, 39 [2001]). Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur. [See 16 Misc 3d 703.]