A number of trial court and appellate court decisions were rendered in 2016 interpreting CPLR Article 9, New York State’s class action statute. Since the Court of Appeals rendered its seminal decision in Borden v. 400 East 55th Street Associates,1 24 N.Y. 3d 382 (2014), there has been a noticeable change in the receptivity of New York courts in making our class action statute more readily available to groups of litigants, especially consumers, employees and tenants.2
This year the courts dealt with a variety of class action issues including whether non-residents are entitled to receive notice to opt out of a derivative class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the certifiability of labor law class actions seeking back pay for interns and unpaid funds earned by Buffalo Jills cheerleaders, the impact of a mandatory arbitration clause on commonality in an action by waitstaff seeking a share of gratuities, breach of contract claims by customers who received inferior and adulterated heating oil, injunctive relief sought by customers of Macy’s suspected of shoplifting and when is notice to putative class members of a pre-certification discontinuance necessary.
Opt-Out Notice
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
