Cooper v. Sleepy's, LLC

Decision Date27 August 2014
Citation2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05942,120 A.D.3d 742,992 N.Y.S.2d 95
PartiesPhilip COOPER, et al., appellants, v. SLEEPY'S, LLC, respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Frank & Associates, P.C., Farmingdale, N.Y. (Peter A. Romero of counsel), for appellants.

Littler Mendelson, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Theo E.M. Gould of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., PLUMMER E. LOTT, ROBERT J. MILLER, and SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to Labor Law § 193 to recover wages wrongly withheld, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered August 15, 2012, as denied their motion for class certification pursuant to CPLR article 9.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiffs commenced this action, inter alia, to recover money which, they alleged, had been unlawfully deducted from commissions they earned while working as commissioned sales staff for the defendant. The plaintiffs then sought certification of the matter as a class action on behalf of all nonexempt persons employed by the defendant in New York State as salespersons during the six years prior to the filing of the complaint in this action. The Supreme Court denied class certification on the basis that common questions of law and fact did not predominate over questions affecting only individual members (see CPLR 901[a][3] ). We affirm, but on a different ground, namely, that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class (see CPLR 901[a][4] ).

A class action may be maintained in New York only after the five prerequisites of CPLR 901(a) have been satisfied ( seeCPLR 902; Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d 129, 135, 871 N.Y.S.2d 263; Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 252 A.D.2d 179, 191, 683 N.Y.S.2d 179). Once those prerequisites are satisfied, the court “shall consider” the factors set forth in CPLR 902 (CPLR 902; see Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 252 A.D.2d at 191, 683 N.Y.S.2d 179). The class representative “bears the burden of establishing compliance with the requirements of both CPLR 901 and 902, and the determination is ultimately vested in the sound discretion of the trial court (Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 252 A.D.2d at 191, 683 N.Y.S.2d 179; see Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d at 135, 871 N.Y.S.2d 263; Kings Choice Neckwear, Inc. v. DHL Airways, Inc., 41 A.D.3d 117, 117, 836 N.Y.S.2d 605).

One of the prerequisites to class certification requires the class representative to demonstrate that “the representative ... will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class” (CPLR 901[a][4] ). “A class representative acts as principal to the other class members and owes them a fiduciary duty to vigorously protect their interests” (City of Rochester v. Chiarella, 65 N.Y.2d 92, 100, 490 N.Y.S.2d 174, 479 N.E.2d 810). “That responsibility clearly encompasses the duty to act affirmatively to secure the class members' rights as well as to oppose the adverse interests asserted by others” (id. at 100, 490 N.Y.S.2d 174, 479 N.E.2d 810). “The three essential factors to consider in determining adequacy of representation are potential conflicts of interest between the representative and the class members, personal characteristics of the proposed class representative (e.g. familiarity with the lawsuit and his or her financial resources), and the quality of the class counsel (Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. Co., 59 A.D.3d at 144, 871 N.Y.S.2d 263).

Here, the plaintiffs failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that they would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class ( seeCPLR 901[a][4]; see...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Coyle v. Long Island Power Auth. (In re Long Island Power Auth. Hurricane Sandy Litig.)
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 29 Diciembre 2021
    ...N.Y.S.2d 304, 929 N.E.2d 366 ; Moreno v. Future Health Care Servs., Inc., 186 A.D.3d 594, 595, 129 N.Y.S.3d 113 ; Cooper v. Sleepy's, LLC, 120 A.D.3d 742, 743, 992 N.Y.S.2d 95 ). These requirements are to be liberally construed in keeping with the goals of CPLR article 9 (see Andryeyeva v. ......
  • Bartis v. Harbor Tech, LLC
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 28 Diciembre 2016
    ...of ... CPLR 901..., and the determination is ultimately vested in the sound discretion of the trial court’ " (Cooper v. Sleepy's, LLC, 120 A.D.3d 742, 743, 992 N.Y.S.2d 95, quoting Ackerman v. Price Waterhouse, 252 A.D.2d 179, 191, 683 N.Y.S.2d 179 ; see Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Ins. ......
  • Rubman v. Osuchowski
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 25 Julio 2018
    ...interests with other class members (see generally Ferrari, 153 A.D.3d at 1592, 61 N.Y.S.3d 421 ; Cooper v. Sleepy's, LLC, 120 A.D.3d 742, 744, 992 N.Y.S.2d 95 [2d Dept. 2014] ). Plaintiffs satisfied the superiority requirement by alleging that the damages likely suffered by each of the tena......
  • Buttar v. Elite Limousine Plus, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 29 Marzo 2022
    ... ... (e.g. familiarity with the lawsuit and his or her financial ... resources), and the quality of the class counsel'" ... ( Cooper v Sleepy's, LLC , 120 A.D.3d 742, 743-744 ... [2d Dept 2014], quoting Globe Surgical Supply v GEICO ... Ins. Co ., 59 A.D.3d 129, 144 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT