Justia New York Court of Appeals Opinion SummariesArticles Posted in Transportation Law
Pasternack v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings
Plaintiff filed an action alleging that Defendants committed fraud and negligence when performing and evaluating a random drug test that Plaintiff was required to take as an airline pilot. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified two questions of New York law to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court accepted the questions and answered (1) drug testing regulations and guidelines promulgated by the Federal Aviation administration and the Department of Transportation do not create a duty of care for drug testing laboratories and program administrators under New York negligence law; and (2) a plaintiff may not establish the reliance element of a fraud claim under New York law by showing that a third party relied on a defendant’s false statements resulting in injury to the plaintiff. View "Pasternack v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings" on Justia Law
Greater N.Y. Taxi Ass’n v. N.Y. City Taxi & Limousine Comm’n
The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC), which regulates taxis and other cars for hire in New York City, engaged in a lengthy process to create the “Taxi of Tomorrow.” The process culminated in rules that established a particular make and model of vehicle as the City’s official taxicab. Petitioners sought to invalidate the rules and obtain a related declaration, arguing that the TLC lacked authority to enact the rules and violated the separation of powers doctrine in doing so. Supreme Court concluded that the rules were invalid because the TLC exceeded its authority under the City Charter and violated the separation of powers by intruding in the City Council’s domain. The Appellate Division reversed and declared that the rules were valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the TLC did not exceed its authority or violate the separation of powers doctrine by enacting the rules. View "Greater N.Y. Taxi Ass’n v. N.Y. City Taxi & Limousine Comm’n" on Justia Law
Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A.
Plaintiffs in these cases were judgment debtors whose bank accounts were frozen by judgment creditors in anticipation of enforcement of a money judgment pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. 52. Plaintiffs brought putative class actions in federal court seeking injunctive relief and money damages against their banks on the grounds that their bank accounts were restrained in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA), which requires banks, when served with restraining notices by judgment creditors, to forward certain notices and forms to judgment debtors. In these cases, the banks allegedly failed to send the required forms. The district courts granted the banks' motions to dismiss, concluding that the EIPA does not imply a private right of action. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified questions of law to the New York Court of Appeals, which answered by holding (1) a private right to bring a plenary action for injunctive relief and money damages cannot be implied from the EIPA; but (2) a judgment debtor can secure relief from a bank arising from a violation of the EIPA in an Article 52 special proceeding. View "Cruz v. TD Bank, N.A." on Justia Law
Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v NYC Taxi & Limousine Commn.
This case involved the regulations of the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission, limiting rates that could be charged by owners of taxicabs who leased those cabs to drivers. Owners challenged a Commission regulation that prohibited owners from collecting sales tax in addition to the maximum permitted lease rates. The court held that the regulation must be annulled because the Commission had not shown any rational basis for it. View "Metropolitan Taxicab Bd. of Trade v NYC Taxi & Limousine Commn." on Justia Law
In the Matter of L&M Bus Corp.
Petitioners, 23 transportation vendors, commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to prevent the Department of Education ("DOE") from implementing allegedly illegal bid solicitations related to a school transportation contract. At issue was whether certain specifications in the bid solicitations of the DOE comported with the public bidding laws. The court held that the "Employee Protection Provisions" ("EPPs") contained in the solicitation were subject to heightened scrutiny and held that the DOE had not proven that the EPPs were designed to save the public money, encourage robust competition, or prevent favoritism. The court, however, applied the rational basis review to the remaining disputed bid specifications and held that the DOE's actions regarding pricing of school transportation and discounted payment arrangements were rational business judgments that lie within the DOE's discretion. View "In the Matter of L&M Bus Corp. " on Justia Law