From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Holcomb v. O'Rourke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

November 9, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.).


Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioners commenced these proceedings after their employment with the County of Westchester was terminated in 1995, alleging that the County had acted improperly in eliminating their positions without obtaining from the County Board of Legislators a corresponding amendment to the County budget. They also sought class certification on behalf of others similarly situated. The Supreme Court granted class certification in favor of the petitioners. The appellants contend that the certification of the class was unnecessary and the class as described was overinclusive.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting class action certification. As a general rule, class action relief is considered unnecessary where governmental operations are involved because subsequent petitioners will be adequately protected under the principle of stare decisis ( see, Rivers v. Katz, 67 N.Y.2d 485, 499; Matter of Martin v. Lavine, 39 N.Y.2d 72, 75; Matter of Jones v. Berman, 37 N.Y.2d 42, 57; Matter of Rivera v. Trimarco, 36 N.Y.2d 747, 749). Here, however, the rule does not apply since the potential petitioners, approximately 300 identifiable individuals, are a large, readily definable class seeking relatively small sums of damages and the predominant issue was whether the petitioners' jobs were improperly abolished by the appellants during the 1995 fiscal year without action by the Board of Legislators to amend the budget ( see, Ammon v. Suffolk County, 67 A.D.2d 959; Beekman v. City of New York, 65 A.D.2d 317; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 901.20; cf., Oak Beach v. Town of Babylon, 100 A.D.2d 930; Brodsky v. Selden Sanitary Corp., 85 A.D.2d 612).

The appellants' remaining contentions, which in part rely on factual allegations dehors the record, are without merit.

Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Holcomb v. O'Rourke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 1998
255 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Holcomb v. O'Rourke

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MICHAEL HOLCOMB et al., Respondents, v. ANDREW O'ROURKE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 9, 1998

Citations

255 A.D.2d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
679 N.Y.S.2d 698

Citing Cases

Sysco Metro Ny, LLC v. City of N.Y.

Watts v. Wing, 308 AD2d 391, 392 (1st Dep't 2003); New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning v. Giuliani,…

PINO ALTO PARTNERS v. ERIE COUNTY WATER AUTH.

However, a recognized exception to this general rule is where the challenged conduct is in the past,…