Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
30 N.Y.3d 377 *; 89 N.E.3d 1227 **; 67 N.Y.S.3d 547 ***; 2017 N.Y. LEXIS 3286 ****; 2017 NY Slip Op 08166; 2017 WL 5574387
 In the Matter of World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation. Stanislaw Faltynowicz et al., Appellants, and State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v Battery Park City Authority et al., Respondents. Santiago Alvear, Appellant, and State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v Battery Park City Authority, Respondent. Peter Curley et al., Appellants, and State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant, v Battery Park City Authority, Respondent.
Prior History: Proceeding, pursuant to NY Constitution, article VI, § 3 (b) (9) and Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR) § 500.27, to review two questions certified to the New York State Court of Appeals by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The following questions were certified by the United States Court of Appeals and accepted by the New York State Court of Appeals: "(1) Before New York State's capacity-to-sue doctrine may be applied to determine whether a State-created public benefit corporation has the capacity to challenge a State statute, must it first be determined whether the public benefit corporation 'should be treated like the State,' see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 516 NE2d 190, 192, 521 NYS2d 653 (N.Y. 1987), based on a 'particularized inquiry into the nature of the instrumentality and the statute claimed to be applicable to it,' see John Grace & Co. v. State Univ. Constr. Fund, 44 NY2d 84, 375 NE2d 377, 379, 404 NYS2d 316 (N.Y. 1978), and if so, what considerations are relevant to that inquiry?; and (2) Does the 'serious injustice' standard articulated in Gallewski v. H. Hentz & Co., 301 NY 164, 93 NE2d 620 (N.Y. 1950), or the less stringent 'reasonableness' standard articulated in Robinson v. Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co., 238 NY 271, 144 NE 579 (N.Y. 1924), govern the merits of a due process challenge under the New York State Constitution to a claim-revival statute?" The second certified question was reformulated by the New York State Court of Appeals to read: "Under Robinson and Gallewski, what standard of review governs the merits of a New York State Due Process Clause challenge to a claim-revival statute?"
Faltynowicz v Battery Park City Auth. (In re World Trade Ctr. Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litig.), 846 F3d 58, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 947 (2d Cir. N.Y., Jan. 19, 2017)
Disposition: Following certification of questions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and acceptance of the questions by this Court pursuant to section 500.27 of this Court's Rules of Practice, and after hearing argument by counsel for the parties and consideration of the briefs and the record submitted, first certified question answered in the negative and second certified question, as reformulated, answered in accordance with the opinion herein.
public benefit corporation, entity, cases, claim-revival, injustice, certified question, municipal, circumstances, Regulating, revive, particularized, statute of limitations, courts, state constitution, powers, decisions, cause of action, parties, rights, questions, purposes, grounds, vested, Authorities, challenges, disease, public benefit, justiciability, reformulate, legislative action
Civil Procedure, Capacity of Parties, Representative Capacity, Representatives, Torts, Liability, State Tort Claims Acts, Entities Covered, Governments, Local Governments, Claims By & Against, Procedural Matters, Justiciability, Standing, Injury in Fact, Parties, Capacity of Parties, Public Entity Liability, Immunities, Sovereign Immunity, Appeals, Appellate Jurisdiction, Certified Questions, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Extensions & Revivals, State & Territorial Governments, Legislatures