You are here: / Civil Procedure
,

Class Certification Should Have Been Granted; Plaintiffs Waived Statutory Treble Damages

The First Department reversed the dismissal of a putative class action by tenants against a landlord alleging the landlord deregulated the apartments while receiving tax incentive benefits from the city.  Because the tenants waived the statutory treble damages provision, the First Department determined that the case no longer involved “penalties” and was therefore not precluded by CPLR 901.  In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, the First Department wrote:

Pursuant to CPLR 901(b), “[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 in 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. … . * * * Rent Stabilization Code (9 NYCRR) § 2520.13, which states that “[a]n agreement by the tenant to waive the benefit of any provision of the RSL or this Code is void,” does not require a different result. “[P]laintiffs are seeking to waive their entitlement to treble damages unilaterally, not through agreement. Thus, allowing the class action to proceed would not frustrate the RSC’s purpose of [avoiding] situations whereby the landlord attempts to circumvent the [RSC’s] benefits” … . Downing v First Lenox Terrace Assoc, 2013 NY Slip Op 02853, 1st Dept, 4-25-13

 

, ,

Class Certification in Landlord-Tenant Action Upheld

The First Department upheld Supreme Court’s grant of class certification in an action alleging defendant landlord charged market rents while accepting J-51 [tax incentive] benefits.  The First Department wrote:

The issues of when defendant received J-51 benefits, whether defendant deregulated apartments while receiving those benefits, which tenants resided in those apartments during those time periods, and whether defendant wrongfully charged market rents while accepting J-51 benefits are common issues that “predominate,” thereby meeting the commonality requirement of CPLR 902(a)(2)… . The need to conduct individualized damages inquiries does not obviate the utility of the class mechanism for this action, given the predominant common issues of liability … .

Defendant’s counterclaim for rent arrears does not cause plaintiff to be an atypical member of the class. Her claim is typical of the claims of all class members in that each flows from defendant’s alleged unlawful deregulation of apartments while receiving J-51 benefits … . “[T]hat the underlying facts of each individual plaintiff’s claim vary, or that [defendant’s] defenses vary, does not preclude class certification” …. Defendant’s counterclaim does not materially add to the complexity or difficulty of resolving plaintiff’s individual claim, and defendant’s suggestion that plaintiff might be inclined to settle her case to evade liability on the counterclaim is speculative.  Bordern v 400 East 55th Street Associates, LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 02815, 1st Dept, 4-25-13

 

, ,

Slander Per Se Complaint Not Based Upon “Serious Crime” (Trespass) ​

In affirming the dismissal of a complaint alleging slander per se based upon the accusation defendant had committed trespass, the Third Department explained:

A statement will fall into one of the four categories of slander per se when  it is so noxious and injurious by nature that the law presumes that pecuniary damages will result and, thus, special damages need not be alleged ….  As relevant here, “slander per se” includes “statements . . . charging [a] plaintiff with a serious crime,” but “the law distinguishes between  serious and  relatively minor offenses, and  only statements regarding the former are actionable without proof of damage” … .  * * *

In any event, even construing the complaint liberally and according plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference, it does not set forth the allegedly defamatory statement with sufficient particularity to satisfy the requirement of CPLR  3016… .  Martin v Hayes, 515024, 3rd Dept, 4-25-13

 

 

, ,

Role of Appellate Court in Reviewing an Arbitral Award Which Has Been Confirmed in a Judgment Explained

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta (with a dissent), the First Department held that payment, by the respondent investment fund, of an arbitral award in stocks as opposed to cash required a hearing to determine the value of the stocks.  The First Department outlined its role where the satisfaction of an arbitral award which has been confirmed in a judgment is before them:

As a threshold matter, we begin by observing that a party may oppose an arbitral award either by motion pursuant to CPLR 7511(a) to vacate or modify the award within 90 days after delivery of the award or by objecting to the award in opposition to an application to confirm the award notwithstanding the expiration of the 90-day period … . Here, respondent did neither. Indeed, it was petitioner who appealed the lower court’s refusal to enforce the judgment. Under such circumstances, contrary to our dissenting colleague, we do not have the authority to grant a non-appealing party relief that it did not seek by vacating a judgment entered against it …. Moreover, we are not empowered to remit the matter to the arbitrator for clarification ….

Where a dispute exists as to the meaning of an arbitration award that has been confirmed in a judgment, it becomes “the Court’s function to determine and declare the meaning and intent of the arbitrator []” …. To that end, a court may review the text of the arbitrator’s award in conjunction with whatever findings, if any, the arbitrator has made …. In so doing, a court should adopt the most reasonable meaning of the text by avoiding any potential interpretations of the award that would render any part of its language superfluous or lead to an absurd result .. . Furthermore, the award must be interpreted in the light most favorable to the prevailing party … .  Matter of Pine St Assoc, LP v Southridge Partners, LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 02854, 1st Dept, 4-25-13

 

, ,

Consolidation of Trials Okay Even If Some Prejudice Results; Potential for Inconsistent Verdicts Eliminated by Consolidation

In a personal injury action, the fact that consolidation of two actions arising from the same accident will result in the jury learning of the existence of insurance did not warrant the denial of the motion to consolidate.  The Second Department wrote:

The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to order consolidation … . The interests of justice and judicial economy are better served by consolidation in those cases where the actions share material questions of law or fact … . A motion to consolidate should be granted absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by a party opposing the motion .. . Here, the appellants principally argued that they would be prejudiced if the two actions are tried before the same jury since it will bring to the jury’s attention the existence of insurance in Action No. 1 …. However, even assuming that under the circumstances of this case, the appellants would be prejudiced by consolidation, any such prejudice is outweighed by the possibility of inconsistent verdicts if separate trials ensue … . Furthermore, the possibility of such prejudice to the appellants can be mitigated by appropriate jury instructions.  Hanover Ins Group v Mezansky, 2013 NY Slip Op 02713, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS, PEDESTRIANS

,

Forum Selection Clause Upheld; Not Shown to Be Unreasonable

In upholding the validity of a contractual forum selection clause, the Second Department wrote:

“Although once disfavored by the courts, it is now recognized that parties to a contract may freely select a forum which will resolve any disputes over the interpretation or performance of the contract” … “A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court” … . Lifetime Brands, Inc v Garden Ridge, LP, 2013 NY Slip Op 02721, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

, ,

Contractual Shortened Statute of Limitations Okay

The Second Department held that a shortened statute of limitations agreed to in an employment contract was enforceable:

“The parties to a contract may agree to limit the period of time within which an action must be commenced to a period shorter than that provided by the applicable statute of limitations” (…see CPLR 201…). “ Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced” … . Hunt v Raymour & Flanigan, 2013 NY Slip Op 02715, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

, , ,

Proof Submitted in Reply Papers Not Considered

In finding plaintiffs’ claim for indemnification was not supported by proof plaintiffs had actually paid the debts for which they sought reimbursement, the Second Department noted that the debt-payment-proof submitted in reply papers could not be considered:

With limited exceptions not applicable here, a cause of action seeking indemnification is not enforceable until payment is made or a loss is suffered by the party seeking indemnification …. Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish, prima facie, that they actually paid any of the debts … . The plaintiffs’ proof on that issue, which was submitted for the first time in their reply papers, may not be considered for purposes of establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law … .  Gamparo v Mathai, 2013 NY Slip Op 02711, 2nd Dept, 4-24-13

 

Jury’s Consulting a Dictionary Justified Mistrial

In upholding the trial court’s grant of a mistrial because the jury consulted a dictionary, the First Department wrote:

…[The court properly determined that the jury’s act of consulting an outside dictionary on a term critical to its decision constitutes misconduct warranting a mistrial, especially since the foreperson indicated that the jury was “confused” about the term “substantial” and the court was unable to give curative instructions … .  However, because the jury’s misconduct related only to the issue of liability, and there is no evidence that it affected the jury’s determination on damages, we reinstate the verdict on damages … .  Olshantesky v New York City Tr Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 02685, 1st Dept, 4-23-13

 

 

,

A Party Can Not Appeal from a Portion of an Order Where the Party Is Not Aggrieved by the Order

The Second Department noted that a party can not appeal from a portion of an order which does not grant relief the party did not request, even where the order includes reasoning with which the party does not agree:

“A party is not aggrieved by an order which does not grant relief [he or she] did not request” … . “Merely because the order appealed from contains language or reasoning that a party deems adverse to its interests does not furnish a basis for standing to take an appeal'” … . Here, the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by so much of the order as, in denying the … defendants’ motion for summary judgment and reaching a result which was not adverse to the plaintiffs, determined that a prior judgment did not have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect on the motion before it … . Since the plaintiffs are not aggrieved by the portion of the order from which they appeal, their appeal must be dismissed. Spielman v Mehraban, 2013 NY Slip Op 02565, 2011-10855, Index No 19056/10, 2nd Dept, 4-17-13

 

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