MTA Personal Injury Lawsuits in 2026: Why Transit Injury Claims Are Rising and What Passengers Need to Know

The short version: an injury claim against the MTA or the New York City Transit Authority runs on its own calendar. A notice of claim within ninety days after the claim arises (General Municipal Law § 50-e, made applicable by Public Authorities Law § 1276(2) and § 1212(2)); a sworn examination if the authority demands one (Public Authorities Law § 1276(4) and § 1212(5)); a thirty-day wait between presenting the claim and suing (§ 1276(1) and § 1212(1)); and a lawsuit within one year and ninety days (§ 1276(2) and § 1212(2)). Bus cases also carry the no-fault serious injury threshold, which changed for actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026.

THE CITY reported on April 27, 2026 that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority paid $561 million in claims in 2025, up from $454 million the year before, and that the authority’s budget documents do not say how much of that total came from personal injury cases. Those are agency-wide totals for every kind of claim. They say nothing about what any one injured passenger will recover.

If you were hurt riding the subway, riding a bus, or walking through a station, the rules that decide your case are procedural before they are factual. A personal injury claim against a transit authority is not an ordinary negligence case with a three-year clock. This post covers the deadlines, the examination, the threshold that applies to bus cases, and the defenses the authority raises.

The Rising Tide of MTA Personal Injury Claims

The authority’s own litigation report gives the scale. As of December 31, 2024, MTA New York City Transit and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority had an active inventory of 12,832 personal injury claims and lawsuits and 1,065 property damage matters arising out of the transit system, plus about 650 personal injury cases from the Access-A-Ride program (MTA 2024 Annual Report, litigation section). The report does not compare that inventory with earlier years, and this post does not guess at the trend.

Common Types of MTA Accidents

Personal injury claims against the transit authorities typically involve:

• slips and falls on wet platforms, debris, or poorly maintained stairs and walkways
• train door and bus door injuries
• falls from the platform to the roadbed, and train strikes
• bus collisions with vehicles and pedestrians, and sudden stops
• escalator and elevator malfunctions in stations
• injuries during construction work in stations
• assaults where the claim is that security was inadequate

The 2024 litigation report lists cases of each kind: a pedestrian struck in a Houston Street crosswalk by a turning M14D bus, a passenger struck by a Staten Island Railway train at the Bay Terrace station, a fall from the platform to the roadbed at the 191st Street station, and the January 4, 2024 derailment near the 96th Street station, after which 45 personal injury claims were filed. Injuries in these cases run from fractures to traumatic brain injury, amputation, and wrongful death.

Why MTA Lawsuits Are Increasing

Three things drive the volume of transit claims: the age of the system, the operation of vehicles by employees, and the authority’s own view of itself as a target.

Infrastructure Challenges

Much of the subway is more than a century old. Station conditions, lighting and stairways are where the slip-and-fall claims come from, and those claims turn on notice. The claimant has to show that the authority created the condition or knew about it, or that the defect was visible and apparent and existed long enough before the accident for the authority’s employees to discover and remedy it (Gordon v American Museum of Natural History, 67 NY2d 836 (1986)).

Staffing and Safety Protocol Issues

Claims about operations, such as a bus that pulled from the curb early or doors closed on a boarding passenger, are judged by ordinary negligence. The authority is liable for the negligence of its officers and employees in the operation of a vehicle or other facility of transportation under its jurisdiction and control (Public Authorities Law § 1276(3); § 1212(3) for the New York City Transit Authority). Since Bethel v New York City Tr. Auth., 92 NY2d 348 (1998), decided October 15, 1998, a common carrier owes reasonable care under all of the circumstances of the particular case. The older duty of the highest care is gone; a jury charged on it is a reversible error.

The “Deep Pocket” Problem

The MTA’s chairman and chief executive said this at a January 2026 committee meeting of the authority’s board, as quoted by THE CITY on April 27, 2026: “When there’s an auto accident, the lawyers tend to look around and say, ‘Was there an MTA bus anywhere nearby?’ Because if we can be made responsible for even 1% of that crash, there are all of a sudden very big potential payouts because we are the deep pocket.” That is the authority’s view of the litigation. Expect it to contest every fault percentage in a bus case, and that matters more now that CPLR 1411(b) bars recovery in an Insurance Law Article 51 action where the claimant’s culpable conduct is greater than the defendants’ (actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026).

Recent High-Value MTA Settlements and Verdicts

The largest figures in the authority’s 2024 litigation report are verdicts, not payments, and the authority reports them as under appeal or still in litigation:

• Beauchamp v. MTA New York City Transit Authority: a pedestrian struck in a Houston Street crosswalk by a turning M14D bus on March 6, 2017. On February 22, 2024, a New York County jury found the transit authority 100 percent liable and awarded $72.5 million. Post-trial motions were denied, and the authority states that it will appeal once judgment is entered.
• The June 27, 2017 derailment at the 125th Street station: 36 claims filed and 30 lawsuits commenced, nine still active at the end of 2024.
• The January 4, 2024 derailment near the 96th Street station: 45 personal injury claims filed, 23 in suit.

A verdict is not a recovery until the appeals are over. CPLR 5501(c) lets the Appellate Division set aside an award that deviates materially from what would be reasonable compensation. None of these figures predicts an individual case.

The MTA Procedural Calendar: Deadlines That Decide the Case

MTA cases are lost on missed deadlines more often than on weak facts. The calendar comes from Public Authorities Law § 1276 for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and § 1212 for the New York City Transit Authority. Both incorporate General Municipal Law § 50-e for the notice of claim.

Step	Time	Authority	If missed
Notice of claim	Within ninety days after the claim arises	General Municipal Law § 50-e(1)(a), applied to the MTA by Public Authorities Law § 1276(2) and to the New York City Transit Authority by § 1212(2)	Action barred unless a court grants leave to serve a late notice under § 50-e(5)
Sworn examination	On the authority’s demand; General Municipal Law § 50-h(2) requires the demand to be served within ninety days from the filing of the notice of claim	Public Authorities Law § 1276(4); § 1212(5); General Municipal Law § 50-h	No action may be commenced until the claimant complies with a properly served demand (§ 50-h(5))
Thirty-day wait	At least thirty days must pass between presenting the claim and suing, and the complaint must say so	Public Authorities Law § 1276(1); § 1212(1)	The allegation is a condition of the state’s consent to the suit
Statute of limitations	One year and ninety days after the cause of action accrued (tort claims other than wrongful death)	Public Authorities Law § 1276(2); § 1212(2)	Dismissed as time-barred
Bill of particulars and disclosure	Per the preliminary conference order	CPLR 3041 through 3044; CPLR Article 31	Penalties under CPLR 3126, including preclusion
Demand for trial de novo (only in a case sent to compulsory arbitration)	Within thirty days after service of the notice of filing of the award, thirty-five if served by mail	22 NYCRR 28.12(a)	Award becomes final
Notice of appeal	Within thirty days after service of the judgment or order with written notice of its entry	CPLR 5513(a)	Right to appeal lost

Wrongful death claims are different: § 1276(2) and § 1212(2) send them to the notice of claim and time limitation provisions of Public Authorities Law Article 9, Title 11, which this post does not cover.

Three practitioner notes

1. The one year and ninety days is the whole period. Section 1276(2) says a tort action “shall not be commenced more than one year and ninety days after the cause of action therefor shall have accrued.” Serving the notice of claim does not add time to that period.
2. A late notice of claim is possible, but only inside the time to sue. General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) lets the court, in its discretion, extend the time to serve the notice; the extension “shall not exceed the time limited for the commencement of an action by the claimant against the public corporation.” The court must consider, in particular, whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within ninety days or a reasonable time thereafter, and must also consider whether the claimant was an infant or mentally or physically incapacitated, whether the claimant relied on settlement representations by the public corporation or its carrier, whether the claimant made an excusable error about which public corporation to name, and whether the delay substantially prejudiced the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits. An application made after the one year and ninety days has run is too late, because there is nothing left to extend.
3. Name every entity. Under Public Authorities Law § 1276(6) the notice of claim requirement does not apply to a subsidiary corporation of the MTA, but in all other respects § 1276 applies to each subsidiary as if it were separately named, so the one-year-and-ninety-day period still does. The New York City Transit Authority is a separate authority under § 1212. The safe course is to serve a notice of claim on every entity that could be responsible, within ninety days, and to sort out the exemptions later.

Your Rights as an MTA Accident Victim

If you were injured in an MTA-related accident, these are the rights the statutes and the cases give you.

The Right to Safe Transportation

The authority owes the care a reasonable carrier would use under all of the circumstances (Bethel v New York City Tr. Auth., 92 NY2d 348 (1998)). The claims that follow from that standard are about:

• maintaining stations, trains and buses in safe condition
• lighting and security in stations
• following the authority’s own operating procedures
• warning passengers of hazards the authority knows about

The Right to Fair Compensation

When the authority’s negligence causes injury, the damages a plaintiff pleads are:

• medical expenses, past and future
• lost earnings and reduced earning capacity
• pain and suffering
• loss of enjoyment of life
• rehabilitation costs

In a bus case, the no-fault rules in the next section decide whether pain and suffering is recoverable at all.

Notice Requirements and Time Limits

The notice of claim must be served within ninety days after the claim arises (General Municipal Law § 50-e(1)(a)). The deadline can be extended only by a court, on an application under § 50-e(5), and only within the one year and ninety days to sue. Under § 50-e(2) the notice must be in writing, sworn to by or on behalf of the claimant, and must set forth:

• the name and post-office address of each claimant and of the claimant’s attorney, if any
• the nature of the claim
• the time when, the place where, and the manner in which the claim arose
• the items of damage or injuries claimed, so far as then practicable

Under § 50-e(3)(a) the notice is served by delivering it personally, or by registered or certified mail, to the person designated by law to receive a summons for the public corporation, or to an attorney regularly engaged in representing it. A good-faith mistake or omission in the notice, other than in the manner or time of service, may be corrected or disregarded in the court’s discretion if the authority was not prejudiced (§ 50-e(6)). A mistake in the time of service gets no such relief.

The Serious Injury Threshold in New York

New York’s “no-fault” system applies to injuries arising out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle, and a bus is a motor vehicle under Insurance Law § 5102(f) and (k). The threshold is a motor vehicle rule. It governs bus cases; it does not govern a fall on a platform or in a station.

Under Insurance Law § 5104(a), in an action by a covered person against another covered person for personal injuries arising out of negligence in the use or operation of a motor vehicle, there is no right of recovery for non-economic loss except in the case of a serious injury. Economic loss above basic economic loss is recoverable without the threshold; the threshold gates pain and suffering. Insurance Law § 5102(d) now defines serious injury as a personal injury which results in:

• death
• dismemberment
• significant disfigurement
• a fracture
• loss of a fetus
• permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system
• permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member
• significant limitation of use of a body function or system

Law changed May 26, 2026. Before Part EE of chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026, § 5102(d) had a ninth category: a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevented the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constituted that person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence. Part EE deleted it. The deletion applies to actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026; an action commenced before that date is still decided under the nine-category definition.

Two more changes from the same act apply to bus cases commenced on or after May 26, 2026:

• Fault first. Under § 5104(a) as amended, no liability for non-economic loss may be fixed unless and until the trier of fact has determined the existence of a serious injury, and the trier of fact may not decide whether an injury is a serious injury until it has determined the party or parties at fault.
• The mostly-at-fault bar. CPLR 1411(b) provides that in an action to recover damages for personal injury subject to Insurance Law Article 51, the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant bars recovery if it is greater than the culpable conduct of the person against whom recovery is sought, or greater than the combined culpable conduct of the persons against whom recovery is sought.

A third change rarely reaches a passenger but can reach a driver hit by a bus. Insurance Law § 5104(d) limits recovery for non-economic loss to $100,000, other than in an action for injuries resulting in death, where the injured person is at fault, is not barred by CPLR 1411, and was operating an uninsured motor vehicle that the person was responsible for insuring (unless the lapse in coverage was shorter than thirty days), was operating while impaired and was convicted of it, or was operating in the commission of a felony or immediate flight from it and was convicted of the felony.

Building a Strong MTA Personal Injury Case

An MTA claim is built in the first ninety days, while the notice of claim is being prepared.

Immediate Documentation

If you are able to do so safely after the accident:

• photograph the platform, stairway, bus or train and any visible injury
• get names and phone numbers of witnesses
• report the incident to transit personnel and keep any incident number
• get medical care promptly, even if the injury seems minor

Evidence Preservation

Your attorney’s first letters go to the authority to preserve:

• incident reports
• surveillance video from station and vehicle cameras, which overwrite on a schedule the authority controls
• maintenance records for the equipment involved
• training and disciplinary records for the employees involved

Medical Documentation

Complete medical records prove both the injury and its connection to the accident. That means emergency room records, diagnostic imaging, treatment notes from every provider, physical therapy records, and a psychiatric evaluation where the injury includes one. In a bus case, the records are also the proof of a serious injury under § 5102(d), and since the 90/180-day category is gone for actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026, the records have to show a fracture, a permanent loss or limitation, or a significant limitation, in a doctor’s objective findings.

Common Defenses and How to Overcome Them

The authority raises the same defenses in most cases.

Comparative Negligence

Under CPLR 1411(a), the claimant’s own culpable conduct does not bar recovery; the damages are diminished in the proportion that the claimant’s culpable conduct bears to the culpable conduct which caused the damages. The authority must plead and prove that conduct as an affirmative defense (CPLR 1412). That is the rule in every station and platform case, and in every bus case commenced before May 26, 2026. In a bus case commenced on or after May 26, 2026, CPLR 1411(b) adds the bar described above: a claimant whose culpable conduct is greater than the defendants’ recovers nothing. The site’s page on the comparative negligence change tracks that rule.

Assumption of Risk

CPLR 1411(a) names assumption of risk as one kind of culpable conduct. It reduces damages; it does not bar the claim, subject to the same § 1411(b) rule in bus cases commenced on or after May 26, 2026. Riding a train or a bus is not an assumption of the risk that the carrier will fail to use reasonable care.

Pre-existing Conditions

If you had earlier injuries or medical conditions, the authority will argue that those conditions, not the accident, explain your current problems. The answer is in the records: the treating doctors’ findings before and after the accident, and an expert’s opinion on causation.

The Role of Expert Witnesses

MTA cases often need testimony from:

• medical experts, on the nature and permanence of the injuries
• safety engineers, on code violations and unsafe conditions
• economists, on future lost earnings and medical costs
• transportation experts, on the authority’s own procedures

Special Considerations for Different Types of MTA Accidents

Subway Platform Accidents

These cases turn on platform edge conditions, crowd management, emergency response, and station maintenance, and on proof of notice under Gordon.

Bus Accident Claims

MTA bus accident cases turn on driver training and supervision, vehicle maintenance records, the bus camera video, and the loading and unloading procedure. They also carry the serious injury threshold and, for actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026, the fault-first sequence and the CPLR 1411(b) bar.

Construction Zone Injuries

With work under way across the system, construction injuries raise barricading and signage, coordination between contractors and authority personnel, and notice to passengers of changed conditions. A worker injured on the job has a separate set of claims under the Labor Law and the Workers’ Compensation Law that this post does not cover.

Why Legal Representation Matters

An MTA case has more conditions precedent than an ordinary negligence case, and the authority’s claims department and attorneys handle thousands of them at a time. Counsel’s job in the first ninety days is to serve a notice of claim that names every entity and states the time, place and manner correctly, to send the preservation letters, and to prepare the client for the sworn examination. After that it is ordinary litigation: the bill of particulars, disclosure, experts, and trial.

The Impact of Recent Legislative Changes

The reform the governor proposed in early 2026 was enacted as Part EE of chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026, signed and effective May 26, 2026, and applicable to actions and proceedings commenced on or after that date. It made four changes, all to motor vehicle cases under Insurance Law Article 51: it deleted the 90/180-day category from § 5102(d); it required the trier of fact to decide fault before serious injury and to fix no liability for non-economic loss until serious injury is found (§ 5104(a)); it barred recovery where the claimant’s culpable conduct is greater than the defendants’ (CPLR 1411(b)); and it capped non-economic loss at $100,000 for the specified uninsured or convicted at-fault drivers (§ 5104(d)). It did not change the notice of claim, the sworn examination, or the one-year-and-ninety-day deadline, and it does not apply to a fall in a station.

Moving Forward After an MTA Injury

The ninety-day notice of claim is the deadline that decides most of these cases. An attorney retained early can:

• serve the notice of claim on every responsible entity within ninety days
• send preservation demands for video and records while they still exist
• handle communications with the authority’s claims department
• prepare you for the sworn examination
• plead the case so that it survives the threshold and the fault rules that apply to it

Conclusion

The $561 million that THE CITY reported the MTA paid in 2025 is an agency-wide claims total, and the authority’s own report lists more than twelve thousand pending personal injury matters. Each one of them had to clear the same gates: a notice of claim within ninety days, a sworn examination on demand, a thirty-day wait, and a lawsuit within one year and ninety days. Bus cases commenced on or after May 26, 2026 must also meet the eight-category serious injury definition, after fault is decided, and must clear the CPLR 1411(b) bar.

If you were injured in an MTA accident, count the ninety days from the accident and get the notice of claim served inside them. Everything else in the case can be fixed later; that cannot.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. represents injured passengers and pedestrians in claims against the transit authorities. If you or a family member was injured in an MTA accident, contact the office for a free consultation.

Related Reading

• $8 Million Yonkers Verdict Highlights Municipal Liability for Truck Accidents in New York: a municipal-defendant case on the notice of claim, the sworn examination, and the one-year-and-ninety-day period that controls MTA cases too.
• New York’s 2026 no-fault reform and concussion claims: what the eight-category threshold means for the brain injury claims that drive many MTA bus passenger cases.
• Mental Health Damages in Personal Injury Claims: Long Island’s Growing Recognition in 2026: the emotional-distress component of serious subway and bus injury cases.

Related Practice Areas

For the firm’s coverage of related topics:

• Long Island Bus Accident Lawyer

• Long Island Pedestrian Accident Attorney

• Long Island Catastrophic Injury Attorney

• FAQ: questions across the firm’s practice areas

• Legal Encyclopedia: NY no-fault, personal injury, and employment-law glossary

Authoritative External Resources

• New York State Department of Motor Vehicles: crash report retrieval and crash statistics
• New York State Senate, Consolidated Laws: official text of the CPLR, the Public Authorities Law, the General Municipal Law, and the Insurance Law

---

Free Consultation: Talk to a New York Attorney

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has recovered more than $100 million for clients across personal injury, employment, and no-fault matters since 2002. We work on contingency: no fee unless we win. The initial consultation is free.

• Call (516) 750-0595 (Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm; 24/7 emergency line)
• Use the secure online contact form

The firm is licensed in New York State only. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice; everything is provided for informational purposes.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

Related: What “de novo” means in New York: trial de novo and de novo review, explained.