Case Name: Charles T. FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1989-04-26
Citations: 873 F.2d 633
Docket Number: No. 704, Docket 88-7924
Parties: Charles T. FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KEARSE and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and SWEET, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 873
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
Charles T. FOSTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PORT AUTHORITY TRANS-HUDSON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 704, Docket 88-7924.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued Feb. 8, 1989.
Decided April 26, 1989.
Richard W. Miller, Islip, N.Y. (Peter M.J. Reilly, O’Hagan and Reilly, Islip, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Arthur P. Berg, New York City (Patrick J. Falvey, Anne M. Tannenbaum, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appel-lee.
Before KEARSE and WINTER, Circuit Judges, and SWEET, District Judge.
The Hon. Robert W. Sweet, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This case raises precisely the same issue as that decided this day in Feeney v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation, (2d Cir.1989). 873 F.2d 628. We reverse and remand for the reasons stated in that opinion.