Ordered that the order dated November 22, 1985 is reversed, on the law, the preliminary injunction is vacated, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint in action No. 1 is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 9, 1986 is dismissed, as academic; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated January 17, 1986 is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, the cross motion is granted, and the complaint in action No. 2 is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the decision dated February 21, 1986 is dismissed as academic, and as no appeal lies from a decision; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant is awarded two bills of costs.
With regard to the District 32 facility, the plaintiffs' motion to enjoin its reopening was denied (Clemente, J.). However, after a hearing, the court (Miller, J.), granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the reopening of the District 20 facility pending further safety modifications. In each matter, the defendant's motion to dismiss the action on the ground of nonjusticiability was denied. We find that injunctive relief was improperly granted and that these matters involve political questions beyond the scope of judicial review.
In Matter of New York State Inspection, Sec. & Law Enforcement Employees v Cuomo (64 N.Y.2d 233), a group of correctional employees sought to enjoin the Governor from closing the Long Island Correctional Facility because the closing of the facility would allegedly endanger correctional personnel and, therefore, violate the petitioners' statutory right to a safe workplace pursuant to Labor Law § 27-a. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the petition on the ground on
The Transit Authority was created by the Legislature as a public benefit corporation to perform a governmental function by operating the transit system in New York City (see, Public Authorities Law §§ 1201, 1202). Like the Department of Correctional Services, it must establish priorities and allocate resources in order to perform its responsibilities, and such exercise of its judgment is generally not subject to judicial review (see, Jones v Beame, 45 N.Y.2d 402, 408). The relief sought by the plaintiffs herein would "embroil the judiciary in the management and operation" of the New York City Transit System, a task the courts are not suited to perform (see, Matter of New York State Inspection, Sec. & Law Enforcement Employees v Cuomo, supra, at 239; see also, Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 N.Y.2d 525, 535-536). Nor do we find from reviewing the record herein that the plaintiffs have demonstrated the existence of "extraordinary or emergency circumstances" which would arguably warrant judicial intervention (Matter of New York State Inspection, Sec. & Law Enforcement Employees v Cuomo, supra, at 240).
In view of our dismissal of these actions, it is unnecessary to address the parties' other contentions.