Rosenberg v. Triborough Bridge And Tunnel Authority

Background

Michael Rosenberg had an E-ZPass account with Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), doing business as MTA Bridges and Tunnels. He alleged that, since 2016, TBTA had charged him a $6 fee to receive a paper account statement. He brought claims under New York General Business Law § 399-zzz and § 349, and sought to bring the § 349 claim for a class of New York residents or former residents who had been charged the fee.

The case originally included the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, but Rosenberg voluntarily dismissed that party. TBTA then moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

Section 399-zzz(1) prohibits a person or business entity from charging a consumer an additional fee connected to payment by United States mail or receipt of a paper billing statement. The statute also says that violations are deceptive acts enforceable under New York’s consumer-protection law, including § 349.

TBTA made two principal arguments. First, it argued that the statute did not apply because TBTA is a public benefit corporation rather than a business corporation. The court rejected that argument, concluding that TBTA is a “corporation” within the meaning of § 399-zzz. The court found no statutory language excluding public benefit corporations and said the legislative history also did not support such a distinction.

Second, TBTA argued that Rosenberg received an account statement, not a billing statement covered by § 399-zzz. The court found the statute ambiguous on that issue and considered ordinary meanings, legislative history, and the E-ZPass agreement incorporated into the complaint. The court concluded that the statements were used to show activity and charges on a prepaid account, not to demand payment. Because no payment was required when the statements were received, the court held that they were not “billing statements” or bills covered by § 399-zzz.

Ruling

The court granted TBTA’s motion to dismiss Rosenberg’s § 399-zzz claim. Because the § 349 claim depended on an alleged violation of § 399-zzz, the court dismissed that claim as well. The conclusion states that the court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint and that the ruling resolved ECF No. 22. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.