Court of Appeals Judge Paul G. Feinman. (Photo: David Handschuh/NYLJ)

The New York Court of Appeals has ruled that a claimant aiming to sue a municipality does not have the right to witness a co-claimant's prefiling hearing over the city's objection.

The high court, in a unanimous opinion released Thursday, said if lawmakers intended to allow co-claimants in those circumstances to observe each other's hearings under General Municipal Law Section 50-h, they would have said that in the statute.

That portion of state law allows for what's known as a 50-h hearing, in which a city can demand an "examination" of a claimant concerning their injuries or damages. The examination "shall be upon oral questions," according to the statute, and a lawsuit against the city cannot be commenced unless a claimant has complied with the examination.

The examination is similar to a deposition, where a person answers questions under oath.

The case centers on two people who say they were rear-ended in 2015 by a city-owned pickup truck, which was driven by a city employee. The plaintiffs served a joint notice of claims and the defendants scheduled 50-h hearings on the incident.

The plaintiffs showed up for their 50-h hearings, but their attorney did not let the hearings move forward unless each person could witness the other person's testimony, according to the court opinion.

The defense rejected the demand and argued "that plaintiffs' refusal to appear at separate hearings" violated city policy and state law, according to the ruling. Both sides could not reach an agreement.

New York's high court sided with the city on the issue and affirmed a lower court's ruling.

"[The statute] does not expressly permit nor give the absolute right to a claimant involved in the same alleged incident to be present at or to observe another claimant's oral examination," according to the opinion, which cited a lower court's conclusion.

The opinion, written by Associate Judge Paul Feinman, indicated that co-claimants could observe each other's 50-h hearings, if there's no objection from the city.

"The legislature's decision to grant claimants the right to have their attorneys attend those examinations, while omitting a similar right to have coclaimants attend, implies that the legislature intended to authorize municipalities to exclude coclaimants from the oral examinations," the court ruled.

The court, in its opinion, noted that a person's failure to comply with a 50-h examination generally warrants the dismissal of the lawsuit.

READ MORE:

New York Court of Appeals Hears In-Person Arguments, Observing Social Distancing

Court of Appeals Strikes Part of New York Rent Law, in Win for Landlords

New York Court of Appeals Calls for Bar Exam in 'Early September'