Trippe v. Port of New York Authority, 14 N.Y.2d 119 (1964)
r
r
When a state statute grants consent to sue a governmental entity, it can impose a mandatory time limit on such suits, even if the claim involves the taking of private property, because the constitutional right to compensation does not automatically waive sovereign immunity.
r
r
Summary
r
Owners of residences near Kennedy Airport sued the Port Authority, alleging noise and low flights constituted a taking of their property without compensation. The Port Authority argued that the one-year statutory limitation for suits against it barred claims accruing more than a year before the suit. The lower courts held the limitation applied only to trespass and nuisance claims, not to takings. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding the one-year limitation applied to all suits against the Port Authority, including claims for uncompensated takings, because the state’s consent to be sued can be conditioned on a timely suit.
r
r
Facts
r
Plaintiffs, homeowners near Kennedy International Airport, claimed that beginning in 1947, the Port Authority’s operation of the airport resulted in excessive noise and low flights, depriving them of the quiet enjoyment of their properties. They alleged the Authority effectively used their properties as an approach area for planes, constituting a taking without compensation, in addition to nuisances and trespasses. The suit was filed in December 1961.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Port Authority moved to strike allegations relating to claims accruing more than one year before the suit. Special Term granted the motion for trespass and nuisance claims but denied it for takings claims. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no time limit on suits for unlawful taking beyond the 15-year prescription period. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the one-year statutory limitation on suits against the Port Authority applies to claims for compensation for alleged takings of property when such claims accrued more than one year before the action was brought.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the state can condition its consent to be sued on a requirement that the suit be brought within a reasonable time, and the one-year limitation applies to all suits against the Port Authority, including claims for the taking of private property.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The court reasoned that before the 1950 statute, the Port Authority was immune from suit without state consent. While the State Constitution prohibits taking private property without compensation, it does not automatically waive sovereign immunity. “A valid cause of action may exist but the state’s immunity prevents its enforcement.” The state can grant consent to suit and condition it on a suit being brought within a reasonable time. The statute explicitly states that “any suit, action or proceeding prosecuted or maintained under this act…be commenced within one year after the cause of action therefor shall have accrued.”r
r
Plaintiffs argued that the constitutional guarantee of compensation is self-executing and waives immunity. The court rejected this, stating that the constitutional provision merely establishes liability but does not address enforcement or immunity. The court cited People ex rel. Dubois v. Supervisors of Ulster County, which held that the constitutional provision prescribes only the mode for fixing compensation and contemplates legislation authorizing suits. The court emphasized that without the statute, complete immunity would exist.r
r
The court concluded that the Port Authority was entitled to strike from the complaint allegations of wrongs committed more than a year before the action commenced, clarifying that it was not ruling on the plaintiffs’ right to recover based on continuing or successive wrongs. The core of the ruling hinged on the principle that the state’s power to grant consent to be sued necessarily includes the power to limit that consent. As the court stated regarding state agencies, “the Legislature ‘ ‘ ‘ could have forbidden suits to be maintained against the Authority in any court or tribunal