,

Motion to Intervene by Members of a De-Certified Class Should Have Been Granted—Class Members Allowed to Sue In Their Individual Capacities

The Second Department determined the motion to intervene by plaintiffs and 167 residents in a de-certified class action alleging environmental damage resulting from emissions from defendant’s (BNL’s) lab should have been granted. The action began as a class action suit which was dismissed without prejudice. Then, in accordance with CPLR 1013, the individuals in the class brought a motion to intervene accompanied by a complaint which was denied by Supreme Court.  The Second Department held the motion to intervene should have been granted and further held that the statute of limitations had been tolled from the time the class action proceedings were commenced:

… [T]he plaintiffs, along with 167 members of the proposed classes, moved together for leave to allow those 167 proposed class members to intervene in the action as plaintiffs pursuant to CPLR 1013, on the ground that “when a class action is de-certified, putative members of the de-certified class are given the opportunity to intervene into the case because of their allegations of common questions of law and fact.” The plaintiffs and the proposed intervenors (hereinafter collectively the appellants) alleged that the proposed intervenors owned property in the vicinity of BNL in 1996 and after, and presented common questions of law and fact with respect to loss of property values, and the cost of using municipal water instead of well water. They submitted a third amended complaint in support of their motion. * * *

… [T]he causes of action of the proposed intervenors are all based upon common theories of liability and, thus, satisfy the requirement of CPLR 1013 that their causes of action involve common questions of law or fact. Contrary to the Supreme Court’s conclusion, BNL would not be faced with a “plethora of new claims.” Moreover, BNL did not demonstrate that intervention would substantially prejudice any party, or cause undue delay … .

To the extent BNL argues, as an alternate ground for affirmance , that the claims of the proposed intervenors are time-barred, this contention is without merit. The statute of limitations applicable to this toxic tort action is the three-year statute of limitations pursuant to CPLR 214-c, which runs from the date of discovery or the date when the injury should have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence … . In American Pipe & Constr. Co. v Utah (414 US 538, 553), the United States Supreme Court held that, under the federal class action rule, commencement of a class action suit tolls the running of the statute of limitations for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status. New York courts have adopted this rule … . Osarczuk v Associated Univs., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05653, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

, ,

Declaratory Judgment Actions Seeking a Determination of the Validity of Certain Tax Assessment/Liens Were Governed by the Six-Year Statute of Limitations

Reversing Supreme Court, the Second Department determined the declaratory judgment actions seeking a ruling on the validity of certain tax assessments/liens were not time-barred and further found that, even where tax assessments are challenged as “void ab initio,” the statute of limitations (six years here) applies:

… [E]ven where a tax assessment is challenged as “void ab initio,” the action is subject to the governing statute of limitations … .

An action for a declaratory judgment is generally governed by a six-year limitations period (see CPLR 213[1]). Where a declaratory judgment action involves claims that are ” open to resolution through a form of proceeding for which a specific limitation period is statutorily provided, then that period limits the time for commencement of the declaratory judgment action'” … . The instant action could not have been brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see CPLR 7803), or as any other form of proceeding for which a specific limitations period is provided. Therefore, the six-year limitations period is applicable … . Town of Hempstead v AJM Capital II, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05663, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

, ,

Absent a Private Right of Action Expressly Granted by Statute, An Association Created by Statute Does Not Have the Capacity to Sue

The Second Department determined a nonprofit association created by statute (Insurance Law 2130), the Excess Line Association of New York (ELANY), did not have the capacity to sue based upon the defendants’ alleged failure to comply with the Insurance Law. Only the Superintendent of Insurance can enforce the Insurance Law.  Because the legislature did not provide ELANY with a statutory private right of action, the association did not have the capacity to bring the suit:

… ELANY both lacked capacity to commence this action and failed to state a cause of action. Capacity to sue “concerns a litigant’s power to appear and bring its grievance before the court” … . Entities created by statute “have neither an inherent nor a common-law right to sue. Rather, their right to sue, if it exists at all, must be derived from the relevant enabling legislation or some other concrete statutory predicate” … Such an entity ” has no power other than that given it by the Legislature, either explicitly or by necessary implication'” … .

ELANY was created by Insurance Law § 2130. The statute gives ELANY certain duties, mostly relating to receipt of records and preparation of reports, and provides that the services ELANY performs are to be funded by a stamping fee assessed for premium bearing documents submitted to it in accordance with Insurance Law § 2118 (see Insurance Law § 2130[a], [f]). Brokers’ records are to be open to examination by ELANY and the Superintendent of Insurance (now the Deputy for Insurance; hereinafter the Superintendent) (see Insurance Law § 2118[c]; Financial Services Law § 203). ELANY must perform its functions under the plan of operation established and approved by the Superintendent and “shall be supervised by the superintendent” (Insurance Law § 2130[a]; see Insurance Law § 2130[c]). The Superintendent may impose fines and may suspend or revoke an excess line broker’s license for noncompliance with the Insurance Law (see Insurance Law §§ 109, 2105[a]). Contrary to ELANY’s contention, none of the provisions of the statute confers upon it by necessary implication the capacity to sue to enforce the provisions of the Insurance Law. Rather, the broad enforcement powers of the Superintendent, the lack of enforcement powers granted to ELANY, and the requirement that ELANY function under the supervision of the Superintendent “negate[ ] any inference of a legislative intent to confer that power” … . Excess Line Assn. of N.Y. (ELANY) v Waldorf & Assoc., 2015 NY Slip Op 05637, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

, ,

Pleading Requirements for Unjust Enrichment and Fraud Not Met

The Second Department determined the complaint against defendant bank alleging unjust enrichment and fraud was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The action stemmed from a foreclosure sale.  After the property had been sold, the judgment of foreclosure and sale was vacated because the bank did not properly serve process on one of the parties. The full amount paid for the property was refunded to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff then sued for unjust enrichment claiming the bank collected banK fees and interest.  Re: unjust enrichment: the complaint failed to allege the bank had been enriched at plaintiff’s expense. And the plaintiff sued for fraud alleging the bank knew it had failed to properly serve one of the parties at the time it prosecuted the foreclosure action.  Re: fraud: the complaint included only conclusory allegations of fraud without out the requisite supporting factual allegations. The Second Department explained:

The elements of a cause of action to recover for unjust enrichment are “(1) the defendant was enriched, (2) at the plaintiff’s expense, and (3) that it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered” … . “The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment or restitution is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered” … .

Here, the plaintiff merely alleged in the amended complaint that U.S. Bank was “unjustly enriched in that it collected bank fees and interest.” Even accepting these allegations in the amended complaint as true, the amended complaint failed, as a matter of law, to sufficiently allege that U.S. Bank was enriched at the plaintiff’s expense … . * * *

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . All of the elements of a fraud claim “must be supported by factual allegations containing the details constituting the wrong” in order to satisfy the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b)… .

Here, the amended complaint consisted of conclusory allegations regarding U.S. Bank’s knowledge that it had commenced and prosecuted the underlying foreclosure action without properly effecting service on all of the necessary parties. Furthermore, the facts alleged in the amended complaint do not give rise to a reasonable inference that U.S. Bank had knowledge of, or participated in, the alleged fraud … . GFRE, Inc. v U.S. Bank, N.A., 2015 NY Slip Op 05640, 2nd Dept 7-1-15

 

Criteria for Intervention Described

In finding the motion for leave to intervene was properly denied, the Second Department explained the criteria:

Upon a timely motion, a person is permitted to intervene in an action as of right when, among other things, “the representation of the person’s interest by the parties is or may be inadequate and the person is or may be bound by the judgment” (CPLR 1012[a][2]…). In addition, the court, in its discretion, may permit a person to intervene, inter alia, “when the person’s claim or defense and the main action have a common question of law or fact” (CPLR 1013…). ” However, it has been held under liberal rules of construction that whether intervention is sought as a matter of right under CPLR 1012(a), or as a matter of discretion under CPLR 1013 is of little practical significance [and that] intervention should be permitted where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings'” … . Trent v Jackson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05467, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

,

Unsigned Deposition Transcripts and Party Admission in Police Report Admissible as Evidence in Support of Summary Judgment Motion

In reversing the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a vehicle accident case, the Second Department noted the unsigned deposition transcripts of both plaintiff and defendant were admissible for purposes of the motion.  The court also noted that a party admission included in a police report was admissible, while the hearsay report itself was not:

“[T]he failure to submit an affidavit by a person with knowledge of the facts is not necessarily fatal to a motion where . . . the moving party submits other proof, such as deposition testimony … . Here, the defendant’s certified deposition transcript, although unsigned, was admissible since it was his own testimony that he was proffering in support of his motion and, in effect, he adopted it as accurate … . In addition, the transcript of the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which was unsigned, was also admissible for the purpose of the defendant’s motion, since the transcript was certified by the reporter and the plaintiff did not challenge its accuracy … .

With respect to the police accident report submitted by the defendant in support of his motion, it was not certified as a business record and thus constituted inadmissible hearsay (see CPLR 4518[a]…), except for that portion of the report which contained a party admission by the plaintiff that she did not have a recollection of the accident … . Gezelter v Pecora, 2015 NY Slip Op 05440, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

, ,

Notice of Claim Timely Served by an Unauthorized Method Deemed Valid/Motion to Renew Based Upon Information Known at the Time of the Original Motion Properly Heard in Exercise of Discretion

The First Department determined the savings provision of General Municipal Law 50-e applied and a notice of claim which was timely served by an unauthorized method was valid.  The court noted that a motion court can exercise its discretion to hear a motion to renew which relies on information known but not raised at the time the original motion was made:

Although the motion was based on information that was available to plaintiff earlier, “courts have discretion to consider such evidence in the interest of justice” … .

Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s notice of claim was not served within the 90-day period set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e, and plaintiff had not timely moved for an extension of time to serve. Plaintiff contended that she qualified under either or both prongs of the “savings provision” under General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c), which provides that “[i]f the notice is served within the period specified by this section, but in a manner not in compliance with the provisions of this subdivision, the service shall be valid if the public corporation against which the claim is made demands that the claimant. . .be examined in regard to it, or if the notice is actually received by a proper person within the time specified by this section, and the public corporation fails to return the notice, specifying the defect in the manner of service, within thirty days after the notice is received.”

Moreover, “[t]he purpose of a notice of claim is to allow the municipal defendant to make a prompt investigation of the facts and preserve the relevant evidence. The applicable statute should be applies flexibly so as to balance two countervailing interests: on the hand, protecting municipal defendants from stale or frivolous claims, and on the other hand, ensuring that a meritorious case is not dismissed for a ministerial error. General Municipal Law § 50-e was not meant as a sword to cut down honest claims, but merely as a shield to protect municipalities against spurious ones” … .

Here, the record shows that plaintiff served a notice of claim on defendant on December 8, 2011 via regular mail, which did not comply with the requirement that service be completed in person or via registered or certified mail. However, defendant subsequently demanded that plaintiff appear for examinations pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h with regard to her claim. Under such circumstances, plaintiff’s service of the notice of claim is valid under the first prong of General Municipal Law § 50-e(3)(c). Person v New York City Hous. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 05417, 1st Dept 6-23-15

 

 

, ,

Court Properly Ordered Further Deposition of County Employee and the Deposition of the Commissioner of Public Works Based Upon Plaintiff’s Showing the Witness Previously Provided Did Not Have Sufficient Knowledge

The Fourth Department noted that the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the further deposition of a county employee and the deposition of the Commissioner of Public Works concerning the maintenance of a section of the road where plaintiff’s-decedent’s car left the road and struck a pole.  The employee’s prior testimony was incomplete because he could not recall relevant information. And, although the county can determine who should be deposed on its behalf, the court can order the deposition of a specific witness where the plaintiff shows the witness previously produced did not have sufficient knowledge:

“A trial court has broad discretion in supervising the discovery process, and its determinations will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion” … . We note with respect to the employee that he admitted at his initial deposition that he could not recall specific details relevant to plaintiffs’ theory of the County’s liability without reviewing the documents that subsequently were produced by the County. We thus conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in directing the further deposition of the employee concerning those documents.

We likewise conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in directing the County to produce the Commissioner for a deposition. “Although a municipality, in the first instance, has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for a deposition, a plaintiff may demand production of additional witnesses when (1) the officers or employees already deposed had insufficient knowledge or were otherwise inadequate, and (2) there is a substantial likelihood that the person sought for deposition possesses information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case” … . Here, the record establishes that the two employees previously produced by the County have at most a general understanding of the reconstruction project contemplated by the County with respect to the section of road where the accident occurred and the reasons that the reconstruction project was abandoned, while the Commissioner has peculiar and specific knowledge about that project and the decision-making process pursuant to which it was abandoned. We therefore conclude that plaintiffs met their burden of demonstrating that the employees previously produced by the County “did not possess sufficient knowledge of the relevant facts or [were] otherwise inadequate” … . Black v Athale, 2015 NY Slip Op 05355, 4th Dept 6-19-15

 

Although It Was Proper to Consider the Motion to Dismiss Made After Issue Was Joined a Motion for Summary Judgment, Supreme Court Should Not Have Determined the Motion Without Giving Notice to the Parties So the Parties Could Lay Bare Their Proof

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should not have converted the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment without notice to the parties.  Because the motion to dismiss was made after issue was joined, it should be treated as a motion for summary judgment. However, because none of the exceptions to the notice requirement applied, Supreme Court should not have determined the motion without giving the parties the opportunity to submit additional evidence.  The matter was remitted for that purpose:

Since the [defendants’] motion was made after issue was joined, the Supreme Court correctly determined that it should be treated as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 … . However, the Supreme Court “was required to give adequate notice to the parties’ that the motion was being converted into one for summary judgment” …, unless one of the recognized exceptions to the notice requirement was applicable … . Here, no such notice was given, and none of the recognized exceptions to the notice requirement is applicable … . Neither the [defendants] nor the plaintiff made a specific request for summary judgment, nor did they “indicate that the case involved a purely legal question rather than any issues of fact” … . Further, the parties’ evidentiary submissions were not so extensive as to “make it unequivocally clear’ that they were laying bare their proof’ and deliberately charting a summary judgment course'” … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred by, in effect, converting the [defendants’] motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(3) to dismiss the complaint into one for summary judgment, and should not have searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff … . JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Johnson, 2015 NY Slip Op 05159, 2nd Dept 6-17-15