Summary
In Williams v Arc of Rensselaer County (77 Misc.3d 212 [Sup Ct. Rensselaer County 2022]), the Supreme Court found that the portion of section 740 that permitted a plaintiff to seek a jury trial (where he could not before) was a remedial statute and therefore had retroactive effect.
Summary of this case from Pisano v. ReynoldsOpinion
Index No. EF2020-267203
09-28-2022
Renee WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. The ARC OF RENSSELAER COUNTY, Defendant.
Sussman & Associates, Attorneys For Plaintiff, Jonathan R. Goldman, Esq., of counsel, P.O. Box 1005, Goshen, New York 10924 Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Attorneys For Defendant, Peter H. Wiltenburg, Esq., of counsel, Avant Building, 200 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202-2107
Sussman & Associates, Attorneys For Plaintiff, Jonathan R. Goldman, Esq., of counsel, P.O. Box 1005, Goshen, New York 10924
Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Attorneys For Defendant, Peter H. Wiltenburg, Esq., of counsel, Avant Building, 200 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202-2107
Henry F. Zwack, J.
In this action commenced under Labor Law 740 ("whistle-blower claim"), the defendant Arc of Rensselaer County seeks to strike the demand for a jury trial in the plaintiff Renee Williams’ Note of Issue— arguing that Labor Law 740(4)(b), which expressly provides for a jury trial in a Labor Law 740 action, was not enacted until after the plaintiff commenced this action, that the statute is not retroactive, and therefore the plaintiff has no inherent right to a jury trial. The plaintiff opposes, asserting that it is in the Court's discretion to allow a jury trial and that she has an inherent right to a trial by jury. For the reasons that follow the Court grants the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's jury demand.
The plaintiff commenced the instant action on October 9, 2020. Labor Law 740 was amended on October 26, 2021 (Chapter 522 of the Laws of 2021), effective on January 26, 2022, towards expanding and providing more complete relief to a plaintiff, particularly including the right to assert both a whistle-blower claim and other causes of action. Prior to Chapter 522 of the Law of 2021, in a Labor Law 740 action, a plaintiff had no right to a jury trial, and was limited to the equitable relief "such as an injunction, reinstatement, back pay and the like ... (and not) general monetary damages, or any monetary relief, indeed, other than the nature of the accounting for back pay, or restoration of benefits" (Richard A. Givens, Practice Commentaries , McKinneys Consolidated Laws of New York, Labor Law 740, p. 566).
As noted, post January 26, 2022, given the right of a plaintiff to assert both a whistle-blower claim and other causes of action, a plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial where the complaint includes both a whistle-blower claim and additional claims.
Turning to the defendant's argument, since the plaintiff's action was commenced prior to the effective date of Chapter 522 of the Law of 2021, that she is not entitled to its retroactive application, the Court is not so persuaded. "Two axioms of statutory interpretation are relevant in determining whether a statute should be given retroactive effect. Amendments are presumed to have prospective application unless the Legislature's preference for retroactivity is explicitly stated or clearly indicated. However, remedial legislation should be given retroactive effect in order to effectuate its beneficial purpose" ( People v. Dyshawn B., 196 A.D.3d 638, 639, 152 N.Y.S.3d 131 [2d Dept. 2021], internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, in the Court's view, the 2021 amendments to Labor Law 740 were remedial, intended to correct what the Legislature viewed as deficiencies in the prior law (New York Sponsors Memorandum, 2021. S.B. 4394).
Problematic, however, for the plaintiff is that in her complaint she seeks only the equitable relief afforded her in the prior statute, and does not assert any additional claims for compensation. Nor has she moved to amend her complaint to assert any additional claims as now afforded by Chapter 522 of the Law of 2021. Accordingly, her relief under Labor Law 740, as stated in her complaint, is limited to reinstatement, back pay and benefits and attorneys fees, and therefore she is not entitled to a jury trial ( Scaduto v. Restaurant Associates Industries, Inc. , 180 A.D.2d 458, 579 N.Y.S.2d 381 [1st Dept. 1992] ).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED , defendant's motion is granted and the demand for a jury trial is stricken from the Note of Issue.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.