34
are and were exempt from regulation by New York City or State and are instead subject
only to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Port Authority. That jurisdiction extends, not
only to the buildings under the control of the Port Authority, but also to the lessees of the
Port Authority "implementing the functions of the Port Authority." New York v.
Rodriguez, 454 N.Y.S.2d 796 (Crim. Ct. Queens County 1982).
Citigroup contends that, in light of the Port Authority's exclusive authority
to approve the design and construction of 7WTC and of the leased space therein,
including the Citigroup space, it would be contradictory now to allow the exclusive
authority of the Port Authority to be challenged in this suit against Citigroup, as a tenant
of 7WTC. Under this approach, the plaintiffs' negligence claims would be limited to
allegations based on ongoing maintenance failures or on other actions taken by Citigroup
that were not subject to the oversight and approval of the Port Authority.
Citigroup's motion to dismiss is premature. It must first file an answer,
setting out its defense by appropriate allegations, and develop a record to support the
ruling it seeks from the court. Citigroup's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is
denied.
4. Negligence Per Se: The Legal Insufficiency of Plaintiff's Fourth Claim
In their fourth cause of action, plaintiffs allege negligence per se by
Citigroup resulting from Citigroup's failure to "properly apply, interpret and enforce New
York City and State fire and safety codes, regulations and practices." (Am. Compl. 7272
¶ 162.) Citigroup moves to dismiss this claim.
As noted in my earlier discussion of the Port Authority's Motion to
