New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Authorities Law § 1212 (2026)

Actions against the authority

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 1212. Actions against the authority. 1. In every action against the
authority for damages, for injuries to real or personal property, or for
the destruction thereof, or for personal injuries or death, the
complaint shall contain an allegation that at least thirty days have
elapsed since the demand, claim or claims upon which such action is
founded were presented to a member of the authority, its general manager
or other officer designated for such purpose and that the authority has
neglected or refused to make an adjustment or payment thereof for thirty
days after such presentment.
  2. Except in an action for wrongful death, an action against the
authority founded on tort shall not be commenced more than one year and
ninety days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is
based, nor unless a notice of claim shall have been served on the
authority within the time limited, and in compliance with all the
requirements of section fifty-e of the general municipal law. An action
against the authority for wrongful death shall be commenced in
accordance with the notice of claim and time limitation provisions of
title eleven of article nine of this chapter.
  3. The authority shall be liable for, and shall assume the liability
to the extent that it shall save harmless any duly appointed officer or
employee of the authority for the negligence of such officer or
employee, in the operation of a vehicle or other facility of
transportation under the jurisdiction and control of the authority, upon
the public streets, highways or railroads within the city, in the
discharge of a duty imposed upon such officer or employee at the time of
the accident, injury or damages complained of, while acting in the
performance of his duties and within the scope of his employment.
  4. No action shall be maintained against the authority or against such
officer or employee on account of such negligence unless a notice of
claim shall have been made and served on the authority within the time
limited and in compliance with all the requirements of section fifty-e
of the general municipal law; nor unless it shall appear by and as an
allegation in the complaint that at least thirty days have elapsed since
the service of such notice upon a member of the authority, its general
manager or other officer designated for such purpose and that the
authority has neglected or refused to make an adjustment or payment of
the claim for thirty days after the service of such notice; nor unless
such action shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action
therefor shall have accrued.
  5. The authority may require any person, presenting for settlement an
account or claim for any cause whatever against the authority, to be
sworn before a member, counsel or an attorney, officer or employee of
the authority designated for such purpose, touching such account or
claim and when so sworn to answer orally as to any facts relative to
such account or claim. The authority shall have power to settle or
adjust all claims in favor of or against the authority.
  6. The rate of interest to be paid by the authority, or by its
officers or employees whose liability has been assumed by the authority
pursuant to subdivision three of this section, upon any judgment or
accrued claim against the authority or such officer or employee, shall
not exceed three per centum per annum.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 140 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Cuccia v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 3745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017).
Cuccia v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2017 NY Slip Op 3745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “Timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action sounding in tort against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the MTA) (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; Public Authorities Law §§ 1212 [2]; 1276 [2];…”
Lauer v. City of New York, 733 N.E.2d 184 (NY 2000). · cites it 2× “Although the majority points out that the Transit Authority in Crosland was liable pursuant to Public Authorities Law § 1212 (3), that statute merely states that the Transit Authority "shall be liable for * * * the negligence of" a duly appointed employee.”
Konner v. New York City Transit Auth., 2016 NY Slip Op 6683 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016). · cites it 3× “The NYCTA moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff failed to serve it with a notice of claim as required by General Municipal Law § 50-e and Public Authorities Law § 1212. In opposition, the plaintiff…”
Bloomingdales, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., 52 A.D.3d 120 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008). · cites it 5× “Judlau moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 3212, asserting that it was barred by the applicable statutes of limitations (General Municipal Law § 50-e, 50-i; Public Authorities Law § 1212; CPLR 214).”
Bloomingdales, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., 915 N.E.2d 608 (NY 2009). · cites it 2× “The Transit Authority and third-party defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, invoking Public Authorities Law § 1212, General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i and CPLR 214, arguing that Bloomingdales’ claim was barred by the statute of limitations because…”
Lynch v. New York City Transit Auth., 12 A.D.3d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · cites it 4× “Jackson upon his failure to appear and answer, and denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground that the plaintiff failed to appear for an oral examination in accordance with Public Authorities Law § 1212 (5). Ordered that the…”
Arteaga v. City of New York, 101 A.D.3d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “Plaintiffs cross motion seeking relief as to nonparty NYCTA was properly denied since plaintiff never served a notice of claim on the NYCTA and the statute of limitations of one year and 90 days has expired (see Public Authorities Law § 1212 [2]; General Municipal Law § 50-e…”
Denio v. State of New York, 851 N.E.2d 1153 (NY 2006). · cites it 2× “[2] A number of statutes governing the interest rate applicable to judgments against governmental entities contain similar language ( see General Municipal Law § 3-a [counties, cities, towns and villages]; Public Authorities Law § 1212 [6] [New York City Transit Authority];…”
Scheja v. Sosa, 4 A.D.3d 410 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004). · cites it 3× “Public Authorities Law § 1212 (2) provides that a tort action against the NYCTA must be commenced within one year and 90 days after the happening of the event upon which the claim is based.”
Kircher v. City of Jamestown, 543 N.E.2d 443 (NY 1989). “, 68 NY2d 165, 169-170 ; see, Public Authorities Law § 1212 [3]). Thus, we held that the Authority could be held liable for the negligent failure of its employees to summon aid while the passenger was fatally assaulted.”
Brunache v. MV Transp., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 5196 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “Service of a notice of claim within 90 days after accrual of the claim is a condition precedent to the commencement of an action sounding in tort against the NYCTA and the MTA (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [1] [a]; Public Authorities Law §§ 1212 [2]; 1276 [2]; Matter of Ryan…”
Crosland v. New York City Transit Auth., 498 N.E.2d 143 (NY 1986). “( 55 NY2d 175, 189 , supra), that legislative declaration was not meant to abrogate the separate statutory provision that the Authority is responsible for the negligence of its employees in *170 the operation of the subway system (Public Authorities Law § 1212 [3]). Indeed, the…”
— N.Y. Public Authorities Law § 1212(1) — 1 case
Ali v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2025 NY Slip Op 03989 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025).
— N.Y. Public Authorities Law § 1212(2) — 2 cases
Matter of Rijos v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 02510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024).
Matter of Khan v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 31075(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2024).
— N.Y. Public Authorities Law § 1212(3) — 1 case
Cropper v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 00352 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024).
— N.Y. Public Authorities Law § 1212(5) — 2 cases
Elentuck v. New York City Tr. Auth., 2020 NY Slip Op 06501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020).
Hernandez-Panell v. City of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 05962 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.