Steinberg v. New York City Transit Authority
Opinion of the Court
This negligence action arises out of a criminal assault on plaintiff Michael Steinberg as he entered a subway station. Defendant Tareyton Williams allegedly attacked plaintiff with battery-operated reciprocating saws. He obtained the saws from a site where employees of Five Star (defendant) were performing work on the station’s public address system.
Five Star does not enjoy governmental immunity. First, Five Star is a private contractor (see Matter of S.S. Silberblatt, Inc. v Tax Commn. of State of N.Y., 5 NY2d 635, 641 [1959], cert denied 361 US 912 [1959]). Second, subway construction is proprietary, not governmental, in character (see Huerta v New York City Tr. Auth., 290 AD2d 33, 38 [2001], appeal dismissed 98 NY2d 643 [2002]; compare Altro v Conrail, 130 AD2d 612, 613 [1987] [action alleging failure to allocate sufficient resources could not be maintained against MTA or against Conrail, which was performing “an essential governmental function for the MTA”]). Thus, the doctrine of governmental immunity would not apply in these circumstances.
Supreme Court correctly found that, as movant, defendant failed to show that it did not breach a duty to plaintiff. Defendant relied on hearsay testimony and accident reports submitted
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.