A Queens County Supreme Court justice this month dismissed a lawsuit filed by corrections officers against their union, its current and former leaders and its law firm, Koehler & Isaacs, finding that the officers lacked standing due to their small number.

Justice Leonard Livote granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the derivative action did not represent 5% of the union's membership.

Livote earlier this month said the Appellate Division, Second Department has previously required that plaintiffs seeking to prosecute derivative actions on behalf of an incorporated labor union must represent at least that proportion of members under §623(a) of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.

Plaintiffs attorney Jeffrey Norton of Newman Ferrara, who represents a group of one active-duty Corrections Officers Benevolent Association member and three retirees, said they intend to appeal.

"Despite the adverse ruling, we are quite optimistic about our forthcoming appeal," he said Wednesday. "We understand Judge Livote felt constrained by the wording of [the] previous appellate ruling but we're looking forward to clarifying the law before the Second Department, and continuing to protect the rights of the members of the Corrections Officers Benevolent Association."

The COBA members filed suit in July 2019, arguing that COBA's executive board failed to appropriately oversee the investment activity of former union president Norman Seabrook and that Koehler & Isaacs was complicit in Seabrook's conduct.

Seabrook was sentenced in February 2019 to nearly five years in prison for his role in a bribery scheme involving the misuse of COBA funds. He was also ordered to pay $19 million in restitution.

The plaintiffs asked for the removal of the executive board and for damages caused by the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the executive board and Koehler & Isaacs.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Reed Brodsky, who represented Koehler & Isaacs, argued that the suit was time-barred, among other issues. The claim against Koehler & Isaacs in particular must be dismissed, he argued, because the First Department has held claims of malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty are governed by the same standard of recovery in actions asserting attorney liability.

Brodsky praised Livote's ruling in a statement.

"We are very happy with the complete dismissal of this lawsuit against the well-regarded law firm of Koehler & Isaacs which has earned a reputation for integrity and tireless advocacy for its clients," he said.

Read more: