Amalgamated Tr. Union Local 1181, AFL-CIO v City of New York
2007 NY Slip Op 09350 [45 AD3d 790]
November 27, 2007
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008


Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181, AFL-CIO et al., Respondents,
v
City of New York et al., Defendants, and Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., et al., Defendants, and Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

—[*1] Proskauer Rose, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Aaron J. Schindel, Michael J. Lebowich, and Dylan S. Pollack of counsel), for appellant.

Kennedy Jennik & Murray, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Susan M. Jennik and Bernhard Rohrbacher of counsel), for respondents. In two related actions, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract dated August 8, 1975, the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hart, J.) entered August 9, 2006, as denied its motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it in action No. 2.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion of the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it in action No. 2 is granted. [*2]

The plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action against the defendant Metropolitan Transportation Authority (hereinafter the MTA) for specific performance of a contract dated August 8, 1975. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the MTA's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it in action No. 2 (see Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1181, AFL-CIO v City of New York, 45 AD3d 788 [2007] [decided herewith]).

The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.