Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990

Love v. Port Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 4, 1990

168 A.D.2d 222; 562 N.Y.S.2d 110; 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14754

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Rose v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (District Court, S.D. New York 1998)
Rossi v. City of New York (2d Cir. 2003)
Bida v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Thompson v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
DeLeon v. Port Authority (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Zappel v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
D'Orlando v. Port Authority of NY & NJ (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Stark v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Santiago v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, J.), entered on or about September 18, 1989, which denied plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 1001 to compel defendant to implead a third-party defendant, denied plaintiffs motion to disqualify defendant’s counsel, and granted defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an employee of United Airlines, was injured at the United terminal at Kennedy Airport. The lease between United Airlines and the Port Authority expressly disclaims any obligation of the Port Authority to keep the premises in good repair. Accordingly, the Port Authority owes no duty to the plaintiff (see, e.g., Lynch v Lom-Sur Co., 161 AD2d 885, 886; cf., Putnam v Stout, 38 NY2d 607). This conclusion is not affected by any provision of the Administrative Code of the City of New York since Port Authority functions as a State agency (Trippe v Port of N. Y. Auth., 14 NY2d 119), exempt from municipal regulation (Matter of Washington County Cease v Persico, 99 AD2d 321, affd 64 NY2d 923). The plaintiff has not shown that denial of summary judgment would be warranted for lack of adequate discovery (Goldheart Intl. v Vulcan Constr. Corp., 124 AD2d 507).

*223Plaintiffs motion to disqualify defendant’s counsel is without basis, resting as it does on sheer speculation.

We have examined the remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.