Relates to prohibiting a court from denying class certification solely because the action involves governmental operations

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Kristen Gonzalez says this is needed

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 not-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 DECIS1S) 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 Dept 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 lAMBOY 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 assump- tion that governmental agencies follow the rules of law laid down by court decisions, potential class members continually confront the reali- ty that successes in non-class actions are applied only to the individ- ually 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.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.