N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Public Authorities / ARTICLE Public Utility Authorities / TITLE Metropolitan Commuter Transportation Authority
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Public Authorities Law § 1264 (2026)

Purposes of the authority

✓ text as retrieved May 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 1264. Purposes of the authority. 1. The purposes of the authority
shall be the continuance, further development and improvement of
commuter transportation and other services related thereto within the
metropolitan commuter transportation district, including but not limited
to such transportation by railroad, omnibus, marine and air, in
accordance with the provisions of this title. It shall be the further
purpose of the authority, consistent with its status as the ex officio
board of both the New York city transit authority and the triborough
bridge and tunnel authority, to develop and implement a unified mass
transportation policy for such district in an efficient and
cost-effective manner that includes the use of design-build contracting
on all projects over two hundred million dollars in cost for new
construction and all projects over four hundred million dollars in cost
for projects that are predominantly rehabilitation or replacement of
existing assets except where a waiver is granted by the New York state
budget director pursuant to a request in writing from the metropolitan
transportation authority. For purposes of granting a waiver pursuant to
this section, such review shall consider whether the design build
contracting method is appropriate for the project that such waiver is
sought for, and the amount of savings and efficiencies that could be
achieved using such method. The determination for such waiver shall be
made in writing within forty-five days from request or shall be deemed
granted.
  2. It is hereby found and declared that such purposes are in all
respects for the benefit of the people of the state of New York and the
authority shall be regarded as performing an essential governmental
function in carrying out its purposes and in exercising the powers
granted by this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1986–2015 · leading case: Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island Rail Road, 516 N.E.2d 190 (N.Y. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island Rail Road, 516 N.E.2d 190 (N.Y. 1987). “Those purposes are specified by statute as being "in all respects for the benefit of the people of the state of New York”, and the Legislature further commanded that "the authority shall be regarded as performing an essential governmental function” (Public Authorities Law § 1264…”
People v. Dixson, 9 Misc. 3d 358 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 2005). “The MTA is a public benefit corporation performing a governmental function in exercising its duties (Public Authorities Law § 1264; Leeds v Metropolitan Transp.”
People v. Mattocks, 51 A.D.3d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008). “The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is a public service corporation created for the purpose of developing and improving commuter transportation and other services related thereto within the metropolitan commuter transportation district (Public Authorities Law § 1264 [1]).…”
Madison Square Garden v. New York Metro. Transp. Auth., 19 A.D.3d 284 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2005). “The Mankoff petitioners lack standing because they do not fall within the zone of interest protected by Public Authorities Law §§ 1264, 1265 and 1267 (see e.”
Altro v. Conrail, 130 A.D.2d 612 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1987). “The MTA is a public benefit corporation (Public Authorities Law § 1263 [1]) created to continue and improve railroad commuter transportation (Public Authorities Law § 1264 [1]) throughout a commuter transportation district including Westchester County and the City of New York…”
Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island Rail Road, 124 A.D.2d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1986). “In the enabling statute creating MTA, it was declared that: "such purposes are in all respects for the benefit of the people of the state of New York and the authority shall be regarded *538 as performing an essential governmental function in carrying out its purposes and in…”
Stathakos v. Metro. Transit Auth. Long Island R.R., 109 A.D.3d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). “Moreover, to the extent that the complaint may be construed as sounding in tort, the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of any such claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), even accepting the facts alleged as true (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 87-88 ).”
Mangano v. Silver, 107 A.D.3d 956 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). “The defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the MTA) is a public benefit corporation created under Public Authorities Law article 5 for the purpose of “the continuance, further development and improvement of commuter transportation and other services related…”
Samuelsen v. Walder, 29 Misc. 3d 225 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010). “” (Public Authorities Law § 1264 [1].) The governing body of the MTA consists of “a chairman, sixteen other voting members, and two non-voting and four alternate non-voting members .”
CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. City of New York, 50 Misc. 3d 283 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015). “) Public Authorities Law § 1264 (1) states, in relevant part, “The purposes of the authority shall be the continuance, further development and improvement of commuter transportation and other services related thereto within the metropolitan commuter transportation district,…”
Mangano v. Silver, 107 A.D.3d 956 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). “The defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the MTA) is a public benefit corporation created under Public Authorities Law article 5 for the purpose of “the continuance, further development and improvement of commuter transportation and other services related…”
Stathakos v. Metro. Transit Auth. Long Island R.R., 109 A.D.3d 979 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2013). “Moreover, to the extent that the complaint may be construed as sounding in tort, the Supreme Court properly directed dismissal of any such claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), even accepting the facts alleged as true (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 87-88 ).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.