BILL NUMBER: S6975

SPONSOR: GONZALEZ
 
TITLE OF BILL:

An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to certif-
ication of class actions in cases involving governmental operations

 
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section 1. Amends section 902 of the civil practice law and rules, as
amended by chapter 474 of the laws of 1975.

Section 2. Sets the effective date.

 
JUSTIFICATION:

In New York State, courts have generally been unwilling to certify a
class action when governmental operations are involved, reasoning that a
class action is not superior to other available methods to litigants.
The idea that the government is a special litigant is incorrect and
unjust all New Yorkers should be able to stand equally before the
              

courts. Low- income and older New Yorkers are more likely to be a plain-
tiff in a class action suit due to a lack of resources to bring individ-
ual actions. Making it harder to bring justice when government agencies
act illegally only further enables them to continue harmful practices.
This legislation seeks to prevent a court from denying or withholding
class certification solely because a lawsuit involves governmental oper-
ations and allow all New Yorkers the opportunity to seek justice while
streamlining the litigation process in the courts.

Legal Services for New York City, a pot-for-profit organization that
provides legal service for low-income people, supports this bill. The
courts reason that a class action is not superior to other available
methods (and thus fails to satisfy the requirement of § 901 (a) (5))
because the doctrine of (STARE DECISIS) provides adequate protection to
putative class members. (JONES V. BERMAN), 37 N.Y. 2d 42, 57 (1975). A
judgment in favor of the plaintiff may protect (SUBSEQUENT) or (FUTURE)
litigants under the doctrine of (STARE DECISIS) However, it will have no
effect whatsoever on persons who already have been and will be adversely
affected by an agency's policies from the date the action was filed
until a final determination. (SEE TINDELL V.  KOCH), 154 A.D. 2nd 689,
565 N.Y.S. 2nd 789, 792 (1st Dep't 1991).  (STARE DECISIS) applies only
after the final determination has been reached in an action that has not
been certified as a class action.  Potential class members already
adversely affected by the agency's policy while the lawsuit is still
pending would obtain no relief at all, unless they commenced individual
actions before a final determination in order to preserve their rights
to the relief sought in a similar proceeding. (SEE A LSO IAMBOY V.
GROSS), 129 Misc. 2nd 564, 493 N.Y.S.2nd 709, (AFF'D) 126 A.D. 2nd 265,
513 N.Y.S. 2nd 393 (1st Dept 1987). Thus, class certification is superi-
or to this doctrine of (STARE DECISIS) to insure relief to members of a
proposed class who have already been or will be affected by a govern-
mental agency's policy before a final decision is issued in a lawsuit.

Moreover, it is often the case that persons who are similarly situated
to the plaintiff in a lawsuit already filed are individuals who are
low-income, elderly, or differently-abled, in which it would be increas-
ingly difficult to pursue actions. Class action is the best method to
protect these potential class members. Finally, even if a person were
able to obtain free legal representation for their individual claims,
the multiplicity of lawsuits seeking the identical relief can give rise
to inconsistent rulings by various state courts.  This results in unnec-
essary expenditure of energy and judicial resources, forcing the legal
service bar, the Attorney General's office and the courts repeatedly to
litigate and decide the same issues of law.

Despite the court's assumption that governmental agencies follow the
rules of law laid down by court decisions, potential class members
continually confront the reality that successes in non-class actions are
applied only to the individually named plaintiffs rather than to all
those similarly situated.

In sum, § 902 of the CPLR should be amended to specify that once the
requirements of the class action provisions of article 9 are satisfied,
certification cannot be denied on the grounds that because the case
involves a governmental agency, the court's decision will be applied to
all individuals similarly situated.

 
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

1995-96: A4933; passed Assembly.

1997-98: A3289; passed Assembly.

1999-2000: A3299; passed Assembly.

2001-02: A7700; passed Assembly.

2003-04: A5942; passed Assembly.

2005-06: A6929; passed Assembly.

2007-08: A4I31; passed Assembly.

2009-10: A5019; passed Assembly.

2011-12: A2334; passed Assembly.

2013-14: A6871; advanced to third reading.

2015-16: A2191; advanced to third reading.

2017-18: A3181; referred to Codes.

2019-20: A2446; referred to Codes.

2021-22: A6501; passed Assembly.

2023-24: A8609/S9518 Vetoed by governor

 
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

None.

 
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.