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 EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT, ASSAULT THIRD CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S FORMER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO ARGUE DEFENDANT’S TRIAL COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS THE TIME-BARRED ENDANGERING-THE-WELFARE-OF-A-CHILD COUNTS; WRIT OF CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REASONABLY DESCRIBED IS DISTINCT FROM WHETHER A SEARCH FOR THE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME; THE DOCUMENTS WERE SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED AND THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; MATTER REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER A SEARCH WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STOPPED WHEN PLAINTIFF WAS REAR-ENDED BY DEFENDANT; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT OFFER A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY; HOWEVER PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE BEEN STOPPED ON AN ENTRANCE RAMP; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE PROPERLY SURVIVED DISMSSAL (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OFFICER DEMONSTRATED RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN HIGH-SPEED PURSUIT.
THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED PLAINTIFF WOULD PAY DEFENDANT ABOUT $38,500 AND PLAINTIFF WOULD BE ENTITLED TO MONTHLY PAYMENTS FROM DEFENDANT’S REVENUE TOTALING ABOUT $52,500 WAS NOT A “LOAN” TO WHICH THE USURY DEFENSE COULD BE APPLIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INCIDENT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY BROKEN GLASS IN A DOOR WAS CAPTURED ON VIDEO WHICH WAS NEGLIGENTLY ERASED; PLANTIFF ALLEGED THE GLASS BROKE WHEN PLAINTIFF PULLED ON THE DOOR; AN EMPLOYEE OF THE BUILDING’S SECURITY COMPANY WHO SAW THE VIDEO CLAIMED PLAINTIFF PUNCHED THE GLASS; PRECLUSION OF TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE VIDEO WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
Although Elevator Company Which Agrees to Maintain Elevator May Be Liable to an Injured Passenger, Here the Passenger Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About the Company’s Notice of a Potential Problem

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

60-Day Rule Did Not Apply—Failure to Submit Proposed Order Within 60 Days... Late Motion to Amend Complaint Should Have Been Granted–No Showing of...