You are here: / / Class Certification Not Available When Action Seeks Payment of a Nonwaivable...

Class Certification Not Available When Action Seeks Payment of a Nonwaivable Penalty

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the respondent county’s request for class certification should not have been granted because the action sought payment of a penalty.  The county was seeking to act on behalf of 55 other governmental agencies to recover a “hotel tax” which allegedly was not fully paid by the appellants, online sellers of hotel accommodations:

Pursuant to CPLR 901(b), “Unless a statute creating or imposing a penalty, or a minimum measure of recovery specifically authorizes the recovery thereof in a class action, an action to recover a penalty, or minimum measure of recovery created or imposed by statute may not be maintained as a class action.” “However, even where a statute creates or imposes a penalty, the restriction of CPLR 901(b) is inapplicable where the class representative seeks to recover only actual damages and waives the penalty on behalf of the class, and individual class members are allowed to opt out of the class to pursue their punitive damages claims” … . Nonetheless, the “waiver” exception to CPLR 901(b) does not apply where a penalty is mandatory and cannot be waived … .

Here, the plaintiff cannot obtain class certification of this action because, under the plaintiff’s own Hotel Tax law, it is required to recover a “penalty” of 5% of the amount of the tax allegedly due from the appellants within the meaning of CPLR 901(b), the recovery of which in a class action is not specifically authorized in the Hotel Tax law, and the imposition of which cannot be waived, as conceded by the plaintiff’s representative during the deposition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR article 9 for class certification of this action. County of Nassau v Expedia Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 06050, 2nd Depy 9-10-14

 

You might also like
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS; THE JUDGE LEFT IT TO MOTHER AND HER CHILD TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS PEDESTRIAN-VEHICLE ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED: ALTHOUGH A PLAINTIFF’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE ISSUE CAN BE DECIDED AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE WHERE PLAINTIFF MOVES FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION WAS NOT PREMATURE (SECOND DEPT).
CLAIMANT STRUCK A DOWNED LIGHT POLE WHICH HAD ROTTED BELOW GROUND, STATE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION.
BANK MOVED FOR AN ORDER OF REFERENCE WITHIN ONE YEAR OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS ABANDONED (SECOND DEPT).
A PROPER FOUNDATION WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF SOME BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED ON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE MOTION TO CONFIRM THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF MORTGAGE COMPANY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AND THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF NEGOTIATED IN GOOD FAITH PURSUANT TO CPLR 3408 (f) (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES IN THIS FOIL PROCEEDING; THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE BULK OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE ARTICLE 78 WAS BROUGHT; RESPONDENTS DID NOT PRESENT AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO INITIALLY DISCLOSE THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
Denial of Area Variance In the Absence of Evidence of a Detrimental Effect on the Community Was Arbitrary and Capricious

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

County Could Seek Judicial Intervention Re: the Collection of a County Hotel... Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion