Steinberg v. New York City Transit Authority
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Clark v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Clark v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Susko v. 337 Greenwich (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Susko v. 337 Greenwich (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
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
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.