NY State Senate Bill 2023-S17A

Current Bill Status - On Floor Calendar

Introduced
- In Committee Assembly
- In Committee Senate
- On Floor Calendar Assembly
- On Floor Calendar Senate
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
Delivered to Governor
Signed By Governor

Please enter your contact information

First Name

Last Name

Email Address

A valid email address is required.

Home address is used to determine the senate district in which you reside. Your support or opposition to this bill is then shared immediately with the senator who represents you.

Optional services from the NY State Senate:

Create an account. An account allows you to officially support or oppose key legislation, sign petitions with a single click, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.

Include a custom message for your Senator? (Optional)

Enter a message to your senator. Many New Yorkers use this to share the reasoning behind their support or opposition to the bill. Others might share a personal anecdote about how the bill would affect them or people they care about.

Actions

View Actions

	Assembly Actions - Lowercase Senate Actions - UPPERCASE
Feb 05, 2024	advanced to third reading
Jan 31, 2024	2nd report cal.
Jan 30, 2024	1st report cal.286
Jan 04, 2024	print number 17a
Jan 04, 2024	amend and recommit to judiciary
Jan 03, 2024	referred to judiciary
Jan 04, 2023	referred to judiciary

Votes

- Jan 30, 2024 - Judiciary Committee Vote
  S17A
  
  12
  
  Aye
  
  5
  
  Nay
  
  2
  
  Aye with Reservations
  
  0
  
  Absent
  
  0
  
  Excused
  
  0
  
  Abstained
  - - Judiciary Committee Vote: Jan 30, 2024
      
      aye (12)
      
      Bailey
      
      Breslin
      
      Gounardes
      
      Hoylman-Sigal
      
      Liu
      
      Mayer
      
      Myrie
      
      Ramos
      
      Sepúlveda
      
      Skoufis
      
      Stavisky
      
      Thomas
      
      nay (5)
      
      Canzoneri-Fitzpatrick
      
      Martins
      
      O'Mara
      
      Palumbo
      
      Rhoads
      
      aye wr (2)
      
      Lanza
      
      Ryan

Bill Amendments

Original

A (Active)

co-Sponsors

View additional co-sponsors

2023-S17 - Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:: A2865
Law Section:: Civil Practice Law and Rules
Laws Affected:: Amd R4404, §5501, CPLR; amd §297, Exec L
Versions Introduced in 2021-2022 Legislative Session:: S5493, A8282

2023-S17 - Summary

Provides that the court shall not reduce jury awards as excessive in employment discrimination actions unless the court finds exceptional circumstances which compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption.

2023-S17 - Sponsor Memo

                                 
BILL NUMBER: S17

SPONSOR: GOUNARDES
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the civil practice law and rules and the executive law,
in relation to jury awards for unlawful discriminatory practices relat-
ing to employment

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

To limit the circumstances in which a judge can significantly alter jury
awards in civil employment discrimination cases

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one of this bill amends subdivision (a) of Rule 4404 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), which provides the circumstances
and process by which a judge may set aside a jury's verdict or order a
new trial in civil judicial proceedings. Section one provides that a
judge may not order a new trial or otherwise act to reduce a jury award
in employment discrimination cases under Executive Law § 296 without

fully satisfying the standards set forth in sections two and three of
the bill.

Section two of this bill amends subdivision c of Section 5501 of CPLR
which describes the scope and jurisdiction of the New York State Supreme
Court Appellate Division. Section two provides that an appellate court
may not deviate from a jury verdict unless it can find by clear and
convincing evidence that the verdict compels the conclusion that the
jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption and
that remittitur or additur is necessary to avoid a total miscarriage of
justice. The jury's verdict is presumed to be correct absent this
evidence and the court shall not limit any award using characterization
of other similar damage awards. The court shall not be bound by prece-
dent or a judge's personal knowledge or experience from prior cases. The
court shall exercise its authority to order a remittitur or additur in
only the most exceptional of circumstances.

Section three of this bill amends subdivision 9 of section 297 of the
Executive Law which provides a cause of action for employees suffering
discrimination under the state's Human Rights Law (Article 15 of the
Executive Law). Section three provides that a jury award of damages for
employment discrimination shall not be subject to a remittitur or addi-
tur unless the party seeking such change demonstrates by clear and
convincing evidence that the jury was influenced by partiality, preju-
dice, mistake or corruption and that a remittitur or additur is neces-
sary to avoid a complete miscarriage of justice. A jury award is
presumed to be correct and entitled to substantial deference and the
court may not substitute its judgment for that of the jury's. The court
shall not limit any award using characterization of other similar damage
awards or bound by precedent which utilized the concept of material
deviation from what would be reasonable compensation.

The last sentence of this section says that this provision is substan-
tive in nature, as opposed to procedural, meaning that it should apply
in both state-level courts and federal courts which may decide certain
employment discrimination cases based on diversity jurisdiction. When
this happens, federal judges are asked to reduce verdicts based on state
law causes of action, so this language is meant to clarify that this
higher standard for remittiturs/additurs should be substantively applied
to all courts and is not a mere procedural matter, which can be easily
disregarded in favor of federal law.

Section four of this bill provides an immediate effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Judges in civil judicial proceedings in New York state are empowered to
overrule and reduce jury awards (known as a remittitur) or increase them
(known as an additur) if they believe that the jury has erred in any way
in its estimation of what a plaintiff is owed. In cases of employment
discrimination brought under Executive Law § 296 (the Human Rights Law),
these awards frequently take the form of emotional distress and punitive
damages which will deter defendants and other employers from allowing
harassment in the workplace to go unchecked.

Judges in New York have begun to generically sort claims under § 296,
however, into certain categories based on details about the case and
defendant, relying heavily on prior case law. A case in which a plain-
tiff has not received medical treatment might be labeled as "garden
variety" and assigned a value of $50,000 or less, no matter what the
jury awarded the plaintiff, where a case involving an "intermediate"
level of emotional distress gets more. These categories, which have no
basis in medical or sociological fact, are simply a result of judges
looking at prior damages of "similar" cases of employment discrimi-
nation. Routinely resulting in reductions of tens if not hundreds of
thousands of dollars, these decisions serve to undermine juries and
public confidence in the civil court system by overturning jury verdicts
for seemingly no valid reason.

This bill would amend the law to establish a higher standard for remit-
titurs and additurs in cases involving unlawful discrimination relating
to employment under Executive Law § 296. It provides that a court may
not overturn a jury's verdict unless it finds that a proponent has prov-
en by clear and convincing evidence that the jury was influenced by
impartiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption and that a remittitur or
additur is necessary to avoid a complete miscarriage of justice. The
court may not categorize awards based on similar characteristics of
other damage awards or be bound by judicial precedent when considering
whether or not to alter a jury award. A jury verdict is presumed to be
correct and entitled to substantial deference, and a court must give
primary consideration to the remedial purpose of the law.

It is the sponsor's hope that these reforms will curb the arbitrary
categorization and reduction of emotional distress and punitive damages
for victims of workplace harassment so that perpetrators of this abusive
behavior are held fully accountable for their actions and victims
receive the justice they deserve.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2022: S5493 - Referred to Judiciary

2021: S5493 - Referred to Judiciary

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
Immediate

2023-S17 - Bill Text download pdf

                             
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                    17
 
                        2023-2024 Regular Sessions
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                                (PREFILED)
 
                              January 4, 2023
                                ___________
 
 Introduced by Sens. GOUNARDES, HOYLMAN, MYRIE, RIVERA, SALAZAR, SEPULVE-
   DA -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed
   to the Committee on Judiciary
 
 AN  ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules and the executive law,
   in relation to  jury  awards  for  unlawful  discriminatory  practices
   relating to employment
 
   THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
 
   Section 1. Subdivision (a) of rule 4404 of the civil practice law  and
 rules,  such  rule  as renumbered by chapter 315 of the laws of 1962, is
 amended to read as follows:
   (a) Motion after trial where jury required. After a trial of  a  cause
 of  action  or  issue triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any
 party or on its own initiative, the court may set aside a verdict or any
 judgment entered thereon and direct that judgment be entered in favor of
 a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law or it may  order  a  new
 trial  of  a  cause  of  action  or separable issue where the verdict is
 contrary to the weight of the evidence, in the interest  of  justice  or
 where  the jury cannot agree after being kept together for as long as is
 deemed reasonable by the court. NO COURT SHALL ORDER A NEW TRIAL ON  THE
 GROUND THAT THE JURY AWARD WAS EXCESSIVE, OR OTHERWISE ACT TO REDUCE THE
 JURY'S  AWARD  IN  A  CASE INVOLVING AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE
 UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE  LAW  RELATING  TO
 EMPLOYMENT,  INCLUDING  A  CLAIM  BY  A  NON-EMPLOYEE  UNDER SECTION TWO
 HUNDRED NINETY-SIX-D OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, WITHOUT FULLY SATISFYING  THE
 PERTINENT  STANDARDS  SET  FORTH  IN PARAGRAPH TWO OF SUBDIVISION (C) OF
 SECTION FIFTY-FIVE HUNDRED ONE OF THIS  CHAPTER  AND  PARAGRAPH  (B)  OF
 SUBDIVISION  NINE  OF  SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN OF THE EXECUTIVE
 LAW.
 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.
                                                            LBD00427-01-3

 S. 17                               2
 
   § 2. Subdivision (c) of section 5501 of the  civil  practice  law  and
 rules, as amended by chapter 474 of the laws of 1997, is amended to read
 as follows:
   (c)  Appellate  division. 1. The appellate division shall review ques-
 tions of law and questions of fact on an appeal from a judgment or order
 of a court of original instance and on an appeal from an  order  of  the
 supreme  court,  a  county  court  or  an  appellate term determining an
 appeal.  The notice of appeal from an order directing summary  judgment,
 or  directing  judgment on a motion addressed to the pleadings, shall be
 deemed to specify a judgment upon said order entered  after  service  of
 the  notice  of  appeal  and  before entry of the order of the appellate
 court upon such appeal, without however affecting the taxation of  costs
 upon the appeal.  In reviewing a money judgment in an action in which an
 itemized  verdict  is  required by rule forty-one hundred eleven of this
 chapter in which it is contended that the award is excessive  or  inade-
 quate and that a new trial should have been granted unless a stipulation
 is  entered to a different award, the appellate division shall determine
 that an award is excessive or inadequate if it deviates materially  from
 what would be reasonable compensation.
   2.  WHERE AN AWARD IS MADE BY A JURY FOR ANY DAMAGES IN A CASE INVOLV-
 ING AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED  NINE-
 TY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT, INCLUDING A CLAIM BY
 A  NON-EMPLOYEE  UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX-D OF THE EXECUTIVE
 LAW, THE JURY'S VERDICT IS  PRESUMED  TO  BE  CORRECT  AND  ENTITLED  TO
 SUBSTANTIAL  DEFERENCE. ANY SUCH AWARD SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS THE
 COURT FINDS THAT THE  PROPONENT  HAS  PROVEN  BY  CLEAR  AND  CONVINCING
 EVIDENCE  THAT  THE  VERDICT  COMPELS  THE  CONCLUSION THAT THE JURY WAS
 INFLUENCED BY PARTIALITY, PREJUDICE, MISTAKE OR CORRUPTION, AND REMITTI-
 TUR OR ADDITUR IS NECESSARY TO AVOID A COMPLETE MISCARRIAGE OF  JUSTICE.
 IN  MAKING  SUCH DETERMINATION, THE COURT SHALL NOT SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDG-
 MENT FOR THE JURY'S, SHALL GIVE PRIMARY WEIGHT TO THE  REMEDIAL  PURPOSE
 OF  THE  LAW, AND SHALL NOT LIMIT ANY AWARD BY INCLUSION IN OR EXCLUSION
 FROM ANY CATEGORY OF CASE OR BY USING  ANY  CHARACTERIZATIONS  OF  OTHER
 DAMAGE AWARDS. IN REVIEWING ANY SUCH VERDICT IN ANY CASE FILED AFTER THE
 EFFECTIVE  DATE  OF  THIS PARAGRAPH, THE COURT SHALL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY
 PRECEDENT WHICH UTILIZED THE CONCEPT OF  MATERIAL  DEVIATION  FROM  WHAT
 WOULD  BE  REASONABLE  COMPENSATION,  OR A JUDGE'S PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OR
 EXPERIENCES FROM PRIOR CASES. THE EVIDENCE  SHALL  BE  REVIEWED  IN  THE
 LIGHT  MOST FAVORABLE TO SUSTAINING THE VERDICT. A COURT SHOULD EXERCISE
 ITS AUTHORITY TO ORDER A REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR ONLY IN THE  MOST  EXCEP-
 TIONAL OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
   §  3. Subdivision 9 of section 297 of the executive law, as amended by
 chapter 140 of the laws of 2022, is amended to read as follows:
   9. (A) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful  discrimina-
 tory  practice  shall have a cause of action in any court of appropriate
 jurisdiction for damages, including, in cases  of  employment  discrimi-
 nation  related  to  private  employers and housing discrimination only,
 punitive damages, and such other remedies as may be appropriate, includ-
 ing any civil fines and penalties provided in subdivision four  of  this
 section,  unless such person had filed a complaint hereunder or with any
 local commission on human rights, or with the superintendent pursuant to
 the provisions of section two  hundred  ninety-six-a  of  this  article,
 provided  that,  where  the division has dismissed such complaint on the
 grounds of administrative convenience, on the grounds  of  untimeliness,
 or on the grounds that the election of remedies is annulled, such person
 shall  maintain  all  rights  to  bring suit as if no complaint had been
 S. 17                               3
 
 filed with the division. At any time prior to a hearing before a hearing
 examiner, a person who has a  complaint  pending  at  the  division  may
 request  that  the  division  dismiss the complaint and annul his or her
 election  of  remedies so that the human rights law claim may be pursued
 in court, and the division may, upon such request, dismiss the complaint
 on the grounds that such person's election of an  administrative  remedy
 is annulled. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of section two hundred four
 of  the  civil  practice law and rules, if a complaint is so annulled by
 the division, upon the request of  the  party  bringing  such  complaint
 before  the  division, such party's rights to bring such cause of action
 before a court of appropriate jurisdiction shall be limited by the stat-
 ute of limitations in effect in such court at the time the complaint was
 initially filed with the division. Any party to a housing discrimination
 complaint shall have the right within twenty days following  a  determi-
 nation  of probable cause pursuant to subdivision two of this section to
 elect to have an action commenced in a  civil  court,  and  an  attorney
 representing  the  division of human rights will be appointed to present
 the complaint in court, or, with the consent of the division,  the  case
 may  be  presented  by  complainant's attorney. A complaint filed by the
 equal employment opportunity commission to comply with the  requirements
 of  42  USC  2000e-5(c)  and 42 USC 12117(a) and 29 USC 633(b) shall not
 constitute the filing of a complaint within the meaning of this subdivi-
 sion. No person who has initiated any action in  a  court  of  competent
 jurisdiction  or  who  has  an  action pending before any administrative
 agency under any other law of the state based upon an act which would be
 an unlawful discriminatory practice  under  this  article,  may  file  a
 complaint with respect to the same grievance under this section or under
 section  two  hundred  ninety-six-a of this article. In cases of housing
 discrimination only, a person whose complaint has been dismissed by  the
 division  after investigation for lack of jurisdiction or lack of proba-
 ble cause may file the same cause of action in a  court  of  appropriate
 jurisdiction  pursuant  to  this section, unless judicial review of such
 dismissal has been sought pursuant to section two  hundred  ninety-eight
 of  this  article. The attorney general shall have the power to commence
 an action or proceeding in the supreme court of the state of  New  York,
 if,  upon  information or belief, the attorney general is of the opinion
 that an employer has been, is, or is about  to  violate  the  provisions
 regarding  unlawful  discriminatory  retaliation pursuant to subdivision
 seven of section two hundred ninety-six of this article. Nothing in this
 section shall in any way limit rights or remedies  which  are  otherwise
 available  under law to the attorney general or any other person author-
 ized to bring an action under this section.
   (B) A VERDICT INVOLVING  AN  UNLAWFUL  DISCRIMINATORY  PRACTICE  UNDER
 SECTION  TWO  HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THIS ARTICLE RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT,
 INCLUDING A CLAIM BY A NON-EMPLOYEE UNDER SECTION  TWO  HUNDRED  NINETY-
 SIX-D OF THIS ARTICLE, SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR, OR
 GRANTING  OF  A  MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE VERDICT WAS
 EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE, OR OTHERWISE REDUCED OR INCREASED,  UNLESS  THE
 COURT  FINDS  THAT  THE  PARTY  SEEKING REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR HAS MADE A
 CLEAR AND CONVINCING SHOWING THAT COMPELS THE CONCLUSION THAT  THE  JURY
 WAS  INFLUENCED BY PARTIALITY, PREJUDICE, MISTAKE OR CORRUPTION AND THAT
 REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR IS NECESSARY TO AVOID A  COMPLETE  MISCARRIAGE  OF
 JUSTICE.  IN MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION, A JURY VERDICT SHALL BE PRESUMED
 TO BE CORRECT AND ENTITLED TO SUBSTANTIAL DEFERENCE. THE COURT SHALL NOT
 SUBSTITUTE ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE JURY'S, SHALL GIVE PRIMARY WEIGHT TO THE
 REMEDIAL PURPOSE OF THE LAW, AND SHALL NOT LIMIT ANY AWARD BY  INCLUSION
 S. 17                               4
 
 IN  OR  EXCLUSION  FROM ANY CATEGORY OF CASE OR ANY CHARACTERIZATIONS OF
 OTHER DAMAGE AWARDS. IN REVIEWING ANY VERDICT IN ANY  CASE  FILED  AFTER
 THE  EFFECTIVE  DATE  OF THIS PARAGRAPH, THE COURT SHALL NOT BE BOUND BY
 ANY PRECEDENT WHICH UTILIZED THE CONCEPT OF MATERIAL DEVIATION FROM WHAT
 WOULD  BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION. A COURT SHOULD EXERCISE ITS AUTHORITY
 TO ORDER A REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR ONLY IN THE MOST EXCEPTIONAL OF CIRCUM-
 STANCES. THIS PROVISION IS SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE, AS OPPOSED  TO  PROCE-
 DURAL,  AND  SHALL BE SO APPLIED IN ANY EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION
 UNDER THIS ARTICLE, REGARDLESS OF FORUM.
   § 4. This act shall take effect immediately.

co-Sponsors

View additional co-sponsors

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Details

See Assembly Version of this Bill:: A2865
Law Section:: Civil Practice Law and Rules
Laws Affected:: Amd R4404, §5501, CPLR; amd §297, Exec L
Versions Introduced in 2021-2022 Legislative Session:: S5493, A8282

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Summary

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

                                 
BILL NUMBER: S17A

SPONSOR: GOUNARDES
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the civil practice law and rules and the executive law,
in relation to jury awards for unlawful discriminatory practices relat-
ing to employment

 
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

To limit the circumstances in which a judge can significantly alter jury
awards in civil employment discrimination cases

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one of this bill amends subdivision (a) of Rule 4404 of the
Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), which provides the circumstances
and process by which a judge may set aside a jury's verdict or order a
new trial in civil judicial proceedings. Section one provides that a
judge may not order a new trial or otherwise act to reduce a jury award
in employment discrimination cases under Executive Law § 296, or any

analogous local or municipal human rights law, without fully satisfying
the standards set forth in sections two and three of the bill.

Section two of this bill amends subdivision c of Section 5501 of CPLR
which describes the scope and jurisdiction of the New York State Supreme
Court Appellate Division. Section two provides that an appellate court
may not deviate from a jury verdict unless it can find exceptional
circumstances which compel the conclusion that the jury was influenced
by partiality, prejudice, mistake or corruption and that remittitur or
additur is necessary to avoid a complete miscarriage of justice. The
court shall give primary weight to the remedial purpose of the law and
shall not limit an award using characterizations of other damage awards.
The court shall not be bound by precedent or a judge's personal know-
ledge or experience from prior cases.

Section three of this bill amends subdivision 9 of section 297 of the
Executive Law which provides a cause of action for employees suffering
discrimination under the state's Human Rights Law (Article 15 of the
Executive Law). Section three provides that a jury award of damages for
employment discrimination shall not be subject to a remittitur or addi-
tur unless the court finds exceptional circumstances which compel the
conclusion that the jury was influenced by partiality, prejudice,
mistake or corruption and that remittitur or additur is necessary to
avoid a complete miscarriage of justice. The court shall give primary
weight to the remedial purpose of the law and shall not limit an award
using characterizations of other damage awards. The court shall not be
bound by precedent or a judge's personal knowledge or experience from
prior cases. The last sentence of this section says that this provision
is substantive in nature, as opposed to procedural, meaning that it
should apply in both state-level courts and federal courts which may
decide certain employment discrimination cases based on diversity juris-
diction. When this happens, federal judges are asked to reduce verdicts
based on state law causes of action, so this language is meant to clari-
fy that this higher standard for remittiturs/additurs should be substan-
tively applied to all courts and is not a mere procedural matter, which
can be easily disregarded in favor of federal law.

Section four of this bill sets the effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

Judges in civil judicial proceedings in New York state are empowered to
overrule and reduce jury awards (known as a remittitur) or increase them
(known as an additur) if they believe that the jury has erred in any way
in its estimation of what a plaintiff is owed. In cases of employment
discrimination brought under Executive Law § 296 (the Human Rights Law),
these awards frequently take the form of emotional distress and punitive
damages which will deter defendants and other employers from allowing
harassment in the workplace to go unchecked.

Judges in New York have begun to generically sort claims under § 296,
however, into certain categories based on details about the case and
defendant, relying heavily on prior case law. A case in which a plain-
tiff has not received medical treatment might be labeled as "garden
variety" and assigned a value of $50,000 or less, no matter what the
jury awarded the plaintiff, where a case involving an "intermediate"
level of emotional distress gets more. These categories, which have no
basis in medical or sociological fact, are simply a result of judges
looking at prior damages of "similar" cases of employment discrimi-
nation. Routinely resulting in reductions of tens if not hundreds of
thousands of dollars, these decisions serve to undermine juries and
public confidence in the civil court system by overturning jury verdicts
for seemingly no valid reason.

This bill would amend the law to establish a higher standard for remit-
titurs and additurs in cases involving unlawful discrimination relating
to employment under Executive Law § 296. It provides that a court may
not overturn a jury's verdict unless it finds that a proponent has the
court finds exceptional circumstances which compel the conclusion that
the jury was influenced by impartiality, prejudice, mistake, or
corruption, and that a remittitur or additur is necessary to avoid a
complete miscarriage of justice. The court may not categorize awards
based on similar characteristics of other damage awards or be bound by
judicial precedent when considering whether or not to alter a jury
award. The court must give primary consideration to the remedial purpose
of the law.

It is the sponsor's hope that these reforms will curb the arbitrary
categorization and reduction of emotional distress and punitive damages
for victims of workplace harassment so that perpetrators of this abusive
behavior are held fully accountable for their actions and victims
receive the justice they deserve.

 
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

2023: S17 - Referred to Judiciary

2022: S5493 - Referred to Judiciary

2021: S5493 - Referred to Judiciary

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all pending
cases where a verdict has not yet been reached as of the effective date
as well as all claims filed on or after the effective date.

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

                             
                     S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
                                   17--A
 
                        2023-2024 Regular Sessions
 
                             I N  S E N A T E
 
                                (PREFILED)
 
                              January 4, 2023
                                ___________
 
 Introduced by Sens. GOUNARDES, GIANARIS, GONZALEZ, HOYLMAN-SIGAL, MYRIE,
   RAMOS,  RIVERA,  SALAZAR, SEPULVEDA -- read twice and ordered printed,
   and when printed to be committed to  the  Committee  on  Judiciary  --
   recommitted  to  the  Committee on Judiciary in accordance with Senate
   Rule  6,  sec.  8  --  committee  discharged,  bill  amended,  ordered
   reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee
 
 AN  ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules and the executive law,
   in relation to  jury  awards  for  unlawful  discriminatory  practices
   relating to employment
 
   THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
 BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
 
   Section 1. Subdivision (a) of rule 4404 of the civil practice law  and
 rules,  such  rule  as renumbered by chapter 315 of the laws of 1962, is
 amended to read as follows:
   (a) Motion after trial where jury required. After a trial of  a  cause
 of  action  or  issue triable of right by a jury, upon the motion of any
 party or on its own initiative, the court may set aside a verdict or any
 judgment entered thereon and direct that judgment be entered in favor of
 a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law or it may  order  a  new
 trial  of  a  cause  of  action  or separable issue where the verdict is
 contrary to the weight of the evidence, in the interest  of  justice  or
 where  the jury cannot agree after being kept together for as long as is
 deemed reasonable by the court. NO COURT SHALL ORDER A NEW TRIAL ON  THE
 GROUND THAT THE JURY AWARD WAS EXCESSIVE, OR OTHERWISE ACT TO REDUCE THE
 JURY'S  AWARD  IN  A  CASE INVOLVING AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE
 UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE  LAW  RELATING  TO
 EMPLOYMENT,  INCLUDING  A  CLAIM  BY  A  NON-EMPLOYEE  UNDER SECTION TWO
 HUNDRED NINETY-SIX-D OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW, OR UNDER ANY ANALOGOUS  LOCAL
 OR  MUNICIPAL  HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, IF APPLICABLE, WITHOUT FULLY SATISFYING
 THE PERTINENT STANDARDS SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH TWO OF SUBDIVISION (C) OF
 
  EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
                       [ ] is old law to be omitted.

                                                            LBD00427-04-3
 S. 17--A                            2
 
 SECTION FIFTY-FIVE HUNDRED ONE OF THIS  CHAPTER  AND  PARAGRAPH  (B)  OF
 SUBDIVISION  NINE  OF  SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN OF THE EXECUTIVE
 LAW.
   §  2.  Subdivision  (c)  of section 5501 of the civil practice law and
 rules, as amended by chapter 474 of the laws of 1997, is amended to read
 as follows:
   (c) Appellate division. 1. The appellate division shall  review  ques-
 tions of law and questions of fact on an appeal from a judgment or order
 of  a  court  of original instance and on an appeal from an order of the
 supreme court, a county  court  or  an  appellate  term  determining  an
 appeal.   The notice of appeal from an order directing summary judgment,
 or directing judgment on a motion addressed to the pleadings,  shall  be
 deemed  to  specify  a judgment upon said order entered after service of
 the notice of appeal and before entry of  the  order  of  the  appellate
 court  upon such appeal, without however affecting the taxation of costs
 upon the appeal.  In reviewing a money judgment in an action in which an
 itemized verdict is required by rule forty-one hundred  eleven  of  this
 chapter  in  which it is contended that the award is excessive or inade-
 quate and that a new trial should have been granted unless a stipulation
 is entered to a different award, the appellate division shall  determine
 that  an award is excessive or inadequate if it deviates materially from
 what would be reasonable compensation.
   2. WHERE AN AWARD IS MADE BY A JURY FOR ANY DAMAGES IN A CASE  INVOLV-
 ING  AN UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINE-
 TY-SIX OF THE EXECUTIVE LAW RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT, OR UNDER ANY  ANALO-
 GOUS  LOCAL  OR  MUNICIPAL  HUMAN  RIGHTS  LAW,  INCLUDING  A CLAIM BY A
 NON-EMPLOYEE UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED  NINETY-SIX-D  OF  THE  EXECUTIVE
 LAW,  THE  JURY'S VERDICT IS PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT. ANY SUCH JURY AWARD
 SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS THE COURT FINDS, REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE IN
 THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO SUSTAINING THE VERDICT, EXCEPTIONAL  CIRCUM-
 STANCES  WHICH COMPEL THE CONCLUSION THAT (I) THE JURY WAS INFLUENCED BY
 PARTIALITY, PREJUDICE, MISTAKE OR CORRUPTION,  AND  (II)  REMITTITUR  OR
 ADDITUR  IS  NECESSARY  TO  AVOID  A COMPLETE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. IN
 MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION, THE COURT SHALL GIVE PRIMARY  WEIGHT  TO  THE
 REMEDIAL  PURPOSE OF THE LAW, AND SHALL NOT LIMIT ANY AWARD BY USING ANY
 CHARACTERIZATIONS OF OTHER DAMAGE AWARDS. IN ANY SUCH  CASE,  THE  COURT
 SHALL  NOT BE BOUND BY ANY PRECEDENT WHICH UTILIZED THE CONCEPT OF MATE-
 RIAL DEVIATION FROM WHAT WOULD BE REASONABLE COMPENSATION, OR A  JUDGE'S
 PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCES FROM PRIOR CASES.
   §  3. Subdivision 9 of section 297 of the executive law, as amended by
 chapter 140 of the laws of 2022, is amended to read as follows:
   9. (A) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful  discrimina-
 tory  practice  shall have a cause of action in any court of appropriate
 jurisdiction for damages, including, in cases  of  employment  discrimi-
 nation  related  to  private  employers and housing discrimination only,
 punitive damages, and such other remedies as may be appropriate, includ-
 ing any civil fines and penalties provided in subdivision four  of  this
 section,  unless such person had filed a complaint hereunder or with any
 local commission on human rights, or with the superintendent pursuant to
 the provisions of section two  hundred  ninety-six-a  of  this  article,
 provided  that,  where  the division has dismissed such complaint on the
 grounds of administrative convenience, on the grounds  of  untimeliness,
 or on the grounds that the election of remedies is annulled, such person
 shall  maintain  all  rights  to  bring suit as if no complaint had been
 filed with the division. At any time prior to a hearing before a hearing
 examiner, a person who has a  complaint  pending  at  the  division  may
 S. 17--A                            3
 
 request  that  the  division  dismiss the complaint and annul his or her
 election of remedies so that the human rights law claim may  be  pursued
 in court, and the division may, upon such request, dismiss the complaint
 on  the  grounds that such person's election of an administrative remedy
 is annulled. Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of section two hundred four
 of the civil practice law and rules, if a complaint is  so  annulled  by
 the  division,  upon  the  request  of the party bringing such complaint
 before the division, such party's rights to bring such cause  of  action
 before a court of appropriate jurisdiction shall be limited by the stat-
 ute of limitations in effect in such court at the time the complaint was
 initially filed with the division. Any party to a housing discrimination
 complaint  shall  have the right within twenty days following a determi-
 nation of probable cause pursuant to subdivision two of this section  to
 elect  to  have  an  action  commenced in a civil court, and an attorney
 representing the division of human rights will be appointed  to  present
 the  complaint  in court, or, with the consent of the division, the case
 may be presented by complainant's attorney. A  complaint  filed  by  the
 equal  employment opportunity commission to comply with the requirements
 of 42 USC 2000e-5(c) and 42 USC 12117(a) and 29  USC  633(b)  shall  not
 constitute the filing of a complaint within the meaning of this subdivi-
 sion.  No  person  who  has initiated any action in a court of competent
 jurisdiction or who has an  action  pending  before  any  administrative
 agency under any other law of the state based upon an act which would be
 an  unlawful  discriminatory  practice  under  this  article, may file a
 complaint with respect to the same grievance under this section or under
 section two hundred ninety-six-a of this article. In  cases  of  housing
 discrimination  only, a person whose complaint has been dismissed by the
 division after investigation for lack of jurisdiction or lack of  proba-
 ble  cause  may  file the same cause of action in a court of appropriate
 jurisdiction pursuant to this section, unless judicial  review  of  such
 dismissal  has  been sought pursuant to section two hundred ninety-eight
 of this article. The attorney general shall have the power  to  commence
 an  action  or proceeding in the supreme court of the state of New York,
 if, upon information or belief, the attorney general is of  the  opinion
 that  an  employer  has  been, is, or is about to violate the provisions
 regarding unlawful discriminatory retaliation  pursuant  to  subdivision
 seven of section two hundred ninety-six of this article. Nothing in this
 section  shall  in  any way limit rights or remedies which are otherwise
 available under law to the attorney general or any other person  author-
 ized to bring an action under this section.
   (B)  A  VERDICT  INVOLVING  AN  UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE UNDER
 SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-SIX OF THIS ARTICLE RELATING  TO  EMPLOYMENT,
 INCLUDING  A  CLAIM  BY A NON-EMPLOYEE UNDER SECTION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-
 SIX-D OF THIS ARTICLE, OR UNDER ANY ANALOGOUS LOCAL OR HUMAN RIGHTS LAW,
 IF APPLICABLE, SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR, OR  GRANT-
 ING  OF A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE VERDICT WAS EXCES-
 SIVE OR INADEQUATE, OR OTHERWISE REDUCED OR INCREASED, UNLESS THE  COURT
 FINDS,  REVIEWING THE EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO SUSTAINING
 THE VERDICT, EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH COMPEL THE CONCLUSION  THAT
 (I)  THE  JURY  WAS  INFLUENCED  BY  PARTIALITY,  PREJUDICE,  MISTAKE OR
 CORRUPTION AND (II) THAT REMITTITUR OR ADDITUR IS NECESSARY TO  AVOID  A
 COMPLETE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. IN MAKING SUCH DETERMINATION, THE COURT
 SHALL  GIVE PRIMARY WEIGHT TO THE REMEDIAL PURPOSE OF THE LAW, AND SHALL
 NOT LIMIT ANY AWARD BY  USING  ANY  CHARACTERIZATIONS  OF  OTHER  DAMAGE
 AWARDS.  IN ANY SUCH CASE, THE COURT SHALL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY PRECEDENT
 WHICH UTILIZED THE CONCEPT OF MATERIAL  DEVIATION  FROM  WHAT  WOULD  BE
 S. 17--A                            4
 
 REASONABLE  COMPENSATION.    THIS PROVISION IS SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE, AS
 OPPOSED TO PROCEDURAL,  AND  SHALL  BE  SO  APPLIED  IN  ANY  EMPLOYMENT
 DISCRIMINATION ACTION UNDER THIS ARTICLE, REGARDLESS OF FORUM.
   §  4.  This  act  shall take effect immediately and shall apply to all
 pending cases where a verdict has not yet been reached as of such effec-
 tive date, as well as all claims filed on or after such effective date.

Comments

Open Legislation is a forum for New York State legislation. All comments are subject to review and community moderation is encouraged.

Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity, hate or toxic speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Attempts to intimidate and silence contributors or deliberately deceive the public, including excessive or extraneous posting/posts, or coordinated activity, are prohibited and may result in the temporary or permanent banning of the user. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday. By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.

Create an account. An account allows you to sign petitions with a single click, officially support or oppose key legislation, and follow issues, committees, and bills that matter to you. When you create an account, you agree to this platform's terms of participation.

Senate Bill S17A

Sponsored By

Current Bill Status - On Floor Calendar

Jan 30, 2024 - Judiciary Committee Vote

Judiciary Committee Vote: Jan 30, 2024

Bill Amendments

co-Sponsors

2023-S17 - Details

2023-S17 - Summary

2023-S17 - Sponsor Memo

2023-S17 - Bill Text download pdf

co-Sponsors

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Details

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Summary

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

Comments

Senate Bill S17A

Share this bill

Sponsored By

Current Bill Status - On Floor Calendar

Bill Amendments

co-Sponsors

2023-S17 - Details

2023-S17 - Summary

2023-S17 - Sponsor Memo

2023-S17 - Bill Text download pdf

co-Sponsors

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Details

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Summary

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Sponsor Memo

2023-S17A (ACTIVE) - Bill Text download pdf

Comments