,

If the Action Challenging Governmental Action Could Have Been Brought in an Article 78 Proceeding, No Matter How the Action Is Labelled, the Four-Month Statute of Limitations Applies

The collection of assessments by the defendant from hydroelectric power plants was deemed illegal in a federal lawsuit brought by a hydroelectric power plant.  Plaintiff, a different hydroelectric power plant, thereafter sought return of the assessments it had paid for six years (between 2002 and 2008) in an action for unjust enrichment.  The Third Department determined that action could have been brought as an Article 78 proceeding challenging the assessments as they were imposed.  Therefore the four-month Article 78 statute of limitations applied, rendering the action untimely:

…Supreme Court erred in applying a six-year statute of limitations because, even though plaintiffs have now labeled their cause of action as one for unjust enrichment, they could have raised their claim for refunds in a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging each annual assessment, for which the applicable statute of limitations is four months (see CPLR 217 [1]).

“Where, as here, governmental activity is being challenged, the immediate inquiry is whether the challenge could have been advanced in a CPLR article 78 proceeding” … . Thus, whether plaintiffs’ “claims are subject to the four-month statute of limitations period under CPLR article 78 . . . turns on whether the parties’ rights could have been resolved in an article 78 proceeding” … . Indeed, the analysis does not depend upon how plaintiffs label their claims but, rather, we “must look to the underlying claim and the nature of the relief sought and determine whether such claim could have been properly made in another form” … . The purpose of this rule, which results in the imposition of a short statute of limitations to governmental action, is to ensure “that the operation of government [will] not be trammeled by stale litigation and stale determinations” … . Northern Elec Power Co LP v Hudson River-Black Riv Regulating District, 2014 NY Slip Op 08280, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

,

Procedure for Determining a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) Where the Defendant Submits Evidence Explained/Elements of Gross Negligence Explained

The Second Department, in finding the complaint adequately pled gross negligence (re: packing and transporting an art collection), explained the analytical criteria for dealing with a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(7) where evidence is submitted by the defendant:

“On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action, the complaint must be construed liberally, the factual allegations deemed to be true, and the nonmoving party must be given the benefit of all favorable inferences” … . The court is limited to “an examination of the pleadings to determine whether they state a cause of action,” and the “plaintiff may not be penalized for failure to make an evidentiary showing in support of a complaint that states a claim on its face” … . “The test of the sufficiency of a pleading is whether it gives sufficient notice of the transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences intended to be proved and whether the requisite elements of any cause of action known to our law can be discerned from its averments'” … .

“A court is, of course, permitted to consider evidentiary material submitted by a defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)” …, and, if it does so, “the criterion then becomes whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action, not whether he has stated one'” … . “Yet, affidavits submitted by a defendant will almost never warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211 unless they establish conclusively that [the plaintiff] has no cause of action” … .

Gross negligence “differs in kind, not only degree, from claims of ordinary negligence” … . “To constitute gross negligence, a party’s conduct must smack of intentional wrongdoing or evince a reckless indifference to the rights of others” … . “Stated differently, a party is grossly negligent when it fails to exercise even slight care or slight diligence” … . Ordinarily, the question of gross negligence is a matter to be determined by the trier of fact … . Dolphin Holdings Ltd v Gander & White Shipping Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 08316, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

Motion to Intervene Should Have Been Granted—Criteria Explained

The Third Department determined that the church elders’ motion to intervene should have been granted.  The church at issue had been funded by the man after whom the church was named more than one hundred years ago. The petitioner sought to have the restrictions on the fund removed so that it could be used to support any local Presbyterian church, rather than just the church founded with the fund. The elders of the church founded with the fund sought to intervene:

“Intervention is liberally allowed by courts, permitting persons to intervene in actions where they have a bona fide interest in an issue involved in that action” … . “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 since a timely motion for leave to intervene should be granted, in either event, where the intervenor has a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings” … .

Here, decedent was a wealthy philanthropist who funded the construction of a church building, and he provided trust funds that have benefitted that church for over 100 years. The congregation provided some proof reflecting that decedent may have intended assistance to the church bearing his name to have precedence over any particular denominational affiliation. Although it is premature to determine whether the congregation will prevail, nonetheless the congregation will be impacted by this proceeding and should be afforded the opportunity to present its position. Matter of Jermain, 2014 NY Slip Op 08274, 3rd Dept 11-26-14

 

, ,

Mistrial Declaration Over Defendant’s Objection Was “Manifestly Necessary”—Double Jeopardy Prohibition Not Triggered

The Second Department determined the trial judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial when defense counsel could not proceed because of a conflict and new counsel needed a two-month adjournment.  Because the mistrial, granted over defendant’s objection, was “manifestly necessary” the double jeopardy prohibition of a second trial was not triggered:

The double jeopardy clauses of the New York State and United States Constitutions protect an accused from multiple prosecutions for the same offense . “In a jury trial, once the jury is empaneled and sworn, jeopardy attaches, and the defendant has a valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal'” … .

When a mistrial is granted over the defendant’s objection or without the defendant’s consent, a retrial is precluded unless ” there was manifest necessity for the mistrial or the ends of public justice would be defeated'” … . “Manifest necessity” means a ” high degree of necessity'” based on reasons that are ” actual and substantial'” … . Moreover, before declaring a mistrial, a court must explore all appropriate alternatives and must provide a sufficient basis in the record for resorting to this “drastic measure” …  . Matter of Roey v Lopresto, 2014 NY Slip Op 08340, 2nd Dept 11-26-14

 

, , ,

Corporation Created by Seneca Nation to Operate a Golf Course Was Not Entitled to Sovereign Immunity—Contractor Hired to Build the Course Can Sue to Foreclose a Mechanic’s Lien

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, determined that a corporation created by the Seneca Nation for the operation of a golf course (Lewiston Golf) was not entitled to sovereign immunity and, therefore, could be sued by the company with which the Seneca Nation contracted to build the golf course.  The contractor brought suit to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien:

Indian tribes possess the common law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers, unless waived. In Matter of Ransom, we set out several factors for courts to [*6]use to determine whether an entity, such as a corporation or agency, that is affiliated with an Indian tribe has the right to claim sovereign immunity against suit.

“Although no set formula is dispositive, in determining whether a particular tribal organization is an ‘arm’ of the tribe entitled to share the tribe’s immunity from suit, courts generally consider such factors as whether: [1] the entity is organized under the tribe’s laws or constitution rather than Federal law; [2] the organization’s purposes are similar to or serve those of the tribal government; [3] the organization’s governing body is comprised mainly of tribal officials; [4] the tribe has legal title or ownership of property used by the organization; [5] tribal officials exercise control over the administration or accounting activities of the organization; and [6] the tribe’s governing body has power to dismiss members of the organization’s governing body. More importantly, courts will consider whether [7] the corporate entity generates its own revenue, whether [8] a suit against the corporation will impact the tribe’s fiscal resources, and whether [9] the subentity has the power to bind or obligate the funds of the tribe. The vulnerability of the tribe’s coffers in defending a suit against the subentity indicates that the real party in interest is the tribe.” (Ransom, 86 NY2d at 559-560 [internal quotation marks, citations, and square brackets omitted; numbering added].) * * *

…[T]he primary purpose of creating the golf course in Lewiston was to act as a regional economic engine and thereby serve the profit-making interests of the Seneca Nation’s casino operations in the area. While this may result in more funds for government projects on the Seneca Nation’s reservations and elsewhere that benefit members of the tribe, … the purposes of Lewiston Golf were sufficiently different from tribal goals that they militate against Lewiston Golf’s claim of sovereign immunity. However, the purposes factor of Ransom is not determinative… . While some of the remaining Ransom factors favor the conclusion that Lewiston Golf is protected by sovereign immunity, the most important ones strongly support the opposite conclusion. Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving Inc v Corporation, 2014 NY Slip Op 08218, CtApp 11-25-14

 

,

Motion to Amend Pleadings to Conform to the Proof Was Properly Granted by the Trial Court—Although the Counterclaim Was Not Pled, the Subject of the Counterclaim Was Central to the Trial—Amendment Did Not Prejudice the Plaintiffs

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, determined the Appellate Division abused its discretion when it reversed Supreme Court’s grant of a motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof. Although not pled as a counterclaim, whether the defendant was entitled to payments under a settlement agreement, and whether the settlement agreement extinguished defendant’s liability under promissory notes held by the plaintiffs, were central to the lawsuit and were the subject of judicial admissions.  Therefore amending the pleadings to conform to the proof did not result in prejudice to the plaintiffs:

 This Court has in the past recognized that, absent prejudice, courts are free to permit amendment even after trial… . Prejudice is more than “the mere exposure of the [party] to greater liability” … . Rather, “there must be some indication that the [party] has been hindered in the preparation of [the party’s] case or has been prevented from taking some measure in support of [its] position” (id.). The burden of establishing prejudice is on the party opposing the amendment … .

Applications to amend pleadings are within the sound discretion of the court, and that of the Appellate Division … . Courts are given “considerable latitude in exercising their discretion, which may be upset by us only for abuse as a matter of law” … . Nevertheless, we have found such an abuse of discretion where the Appellate Division reversed a trial court’s grant of an amendment and the record established that the opposing party suffered “no operative prejudice” as a result of the mere omission to plead a defense … . Kimso Apts LLC v Gandhi, 2014 NY Slip OP 08219, CtApp 11-25-14

 

, , ,

Class Action Mechanism Is Available Where the Relevant Statute Imposes a Non-Mandatory Penalty and the Penalty Is Waived by the Class

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined that class action suits brought by tenants pursuant to CPLR 901 (b) were properly allowed to go forward.  The suits alleged the tenants, who were in rent-stabilized apartments, were overcharged when the landlords decontrolled the apartments despite their receipt of tax benefits under the J-51 program.  The Court of Appeals, in 2009, determined that the receipt of J-51 tax benefits precluded the landlords from decontrolling the apartments.  The central issue was the availability of the class action mechanism, which is generally not available where the suit seeks the imposition of a penalty.  Here the treble damages (penalty) provision of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL 26-516) was waived by the plaintiffs. The waiver was deemed valid, clearing the way for the class actions:

CPLR 901 (b) prohibits any claim for penalties to be brought as a class action. It states, “[u]nless 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” (CPLR 901 [b]). The language of CPLR 901 (b) itself says it is not dispositive that a statute imposes a penalty so long as the action brought pursuant to that statute does not seek to recover the penalty. * * *

From a policy standpoint, permitting plaintiffs to bring these claims as a class accomplishes the purpose of CPLR 901 (b). Preemptively responding to the argument raised by defendants here, the State Consumer Protection Board emphasized the importance of class actions: “The class action device responds to the problem of inadequate information as well as to the need for economies of scale” for “. . . a person contemplating illegal action will not be able to rely on the fact that most people will be unaware of their rights — if even one typical person files a class action, the suit will go forward and the other members of the class will be notified of the action either during the proceedings or after a judgment is rendered in their favor” (Mem of State Consumer Protection Bd, Bill Jacket, L 1975, ch 207).

Where a statute imposes a non-mandatory penalty, plaintiffs may waive the penalty in order to bring the claim as a class action … . Borden 400 E 55th St Assoc LP, 2014 NY Slip Op 08211, CtApp 11-24-14

 

,

Defendant Cannot Meet Its Burden In a Summary Judgment Motion Solely by Pointing to Proof Problems in the Plaintiff’s Case/Court, Pursuant to Its Power to Search the Record in Determining a Summary Judgment Motion, Cannot Address Claims that Were Not the Subject of the Motion

In a private nuisance action, the Third Department noted that a defendant cannot prevail on a summary judgment motion solely by arguing gaps or proof problems in the plaintiff’s case and the court cannot “search the record” to dismiss claims that were not the subject of the summary judgment motion:

In support of their motions for summary judgment, defendants did nothing more than argue that plaintiffs failed to plead — and ultimately will be unable to prove — compensable damages and, therefore, dismissal of plaintiffs’ first and second causes of action sounding in private nuisance and trespass was warranted. Even assuming, without deciding, that defendants’ assessment of plaintiffs’ pleadings and examination before trial testimony is accurate, the case law makes clear that the moving party must affirmatively demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment “and does not meet its burden [in this regard merely] by noting gaps in its opponent’s proof” … . * * *

…Although CPLR 3212 (b) — cited by Supreme Court here — indeed permits a court to search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party, Supreme Court’s authority in this regard extends “only . . . to a cause of action or issue that is the subject of the motions before the court” … . Stated another way, “[a] motion for summary judgment addressed to one claim or defense does not provide a basis for the court to search the record to grant summary judgment on an unrelated claim or defense” … . Schillaci v Sarris, 2014 NY Slip Op 08072, 3rd Dept 11-20-14

 

, ,

Heightened Pleading Requirements for Fraud Not Met

The First Department determined that plaintiff’s fraud cause of action was properly dismissed for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements:

Plaintiff has not satisfied the heightened pleading standard for a fraud claim under CPLR § 3016(b) because it failed to identify any of the allegedly, false representations that [defendant] made with the then present intent to induce plaintiff’s investment in the project. Moreover, the fraudulent inducement claim duplicates the breach of contract claim because plaintiff has not alleged any representation that is collateral to the contract … . “A fraud-based claim is duplicative of breach of a contract claim when the only fraud alleged is that the defendant was not sincere when it promised to perform under the contract.” MMCT LLC v JTR Coll Point LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08103, 1st Dept 11-20-14

 

, , , ,

In a Lead-Paint-Injury Case, Non-party Medical Records Not Discoverable (Re: Plaintiff’s Mother and Siblings)–Non-party Academic Records Should Be Submitted for In Camera Review–Mother Cannot Be Compelled to Submit to an IQ Test

The Third Department determined the extent of allowable discovery re: non-parties in a lead-paint-injury case.  The defense sought medical and academic records of plaintiff’s mother and siblings, all non-parties, and sought to compel the mother to undergo an IQ test.  The Third Department held that the non-party medical records were not discoverable (except for the mother’s records during pregnancy), the non-party academic records should be submitted to the court for in camera review, and the mother should not be compelled to undergo an IQ test:

A subdivision of the main disclosure statute provides that “[u]pon objection by a person entitled to assert the privilege, privileged matter shall not be obtainable” (CPLR 3101 [b]). Medical records are protected by a doctor-patient privilege and cannot be disclosed without consent or a waiver of the privilege (see CPLR 4504 [a]…). A plaintiff waives the privilege by commencing an action that places his or her mental or physical condition at issue, but nonparties are not subject to having their medical histories made public merely because a relative commences an action … . As plaintiff’s mother and siblings did not consent and have not waived that privilege, Supreme Court should not have ordered disclosure of their medical records … . An exception exists for the mother’s medical records during the time of her pregnancy with and birth of plaintiff, but plaintiff has already provided an authorization for those records … .

Regarding the mother’s and siblings’ academic records, defendants have submitted an expert affidavit, as noted above, indicating that those records are relevant and necessary to determine whether other factors caused plaintiff’s injuries … . Considering that these records are private but not privileged, Supreme Court reasonably balanced defendants’ need for them and their possible relevance against the burden to these nonparties from disclosure, requiring that the siblings’ records be produced to the court for an in camera review … . The mother’s academic records should similarly be submitted to the court for review and redaction of any privileged material. …

Defendants’ need for her IQ test results, however, are not outweighed by the burden on her to undergo such a test, as well as the potential for extending this litigation by focusing on information extraneous to plaintiff’s condition, such as all of the factors contributing to the mother’s IQ … . Considering the private and personal nature of the information sought and the potential delay due to myriad collateral issues, defendants should not be able to compel plaintiff’s mother, a nonparty, to undergo an IQ test … . Perez v Fleischer, 2014 NY Slip Op 008101, 3rd Dept 11-20-14