LaCarruba v. Legislature of County of Suffolk
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the action as a class action because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that there existed questions of law or fact common to the class or that the claims of the representative parties were typical of the claims of the class (see, CPLR 901 [a] [2], [3]). Unlike the plaintiffs, the majority of the proposed class did not pay the disputed fee under protest. Therefore, only those members of the proposed class who paid the disputed fee under protest would be entitled to an automatic refund while the other members may only…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Jones v. BermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Rivers v. KatzNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Martin v. LavineNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Video Aid Corp. v. Town of WallkillNew York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Conklin v. Town of SouthamptonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Board of Education of City School District v. County of WestchesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Gottlieb v. City of South EuclidOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
- Neama v. Town of BabylonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005