Deluca v. Tonawanda Coke Corp.

• Decision Date: 31 December 2015
• Parties: Mary DELUCA, Individually, and as Class Representative, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. TONAWANDA COKE CORPORATION, Estate of J.D. Crane, Deceased, Mark Kamholz, Defendants–Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Appeal No. 1.).
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

134 A.D.3d 1534
22 N.Y.S.3d 768

Mary DELUCA, Individually, and as Class Representative, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents,
v.
TONAWANDA COKE CORPORATION, Estate of J.D. Crane, Deceased, Mark Kamholz, Defendants–Appellants, et al., Defendants. (Appeal No. 1.).

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Dec. 31, 2015.

22 N.Y.S.3d 769

Hodgson Russ LLP, Buffalo (Hugh M. Russ, III, of Counsel), for Defendants–Appellants.

Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., New York City (Alfred M. Anthony of Counsel), Collins & Collins Attorneys, LLC, Buffalo, Gordon & Gordon, Springfield, NJ, and Hobbie, Corrigan & Bertucio, P.C., Eatontown, NJ, for Plaintiffs–Respondents.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND DeJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

134 A.D.3d 1534

Mary DeLuca (plaintiff) commenced this action, individually and on behalf of purported classes of personal injury plaintiffs seeking damages caused by defendants' negligent release of chemicals into the atmosphere. In appeal No. 1, Tonawanda Coke Corporation, the Estate of J.D. Crane, deceased, and Mark Kamholz (defendants) appeal from an order that, inter alia, denied their motion to dismiss the class allegations and granted plaintiff's cross motion for an extension of time in which to seek class certification. In appeal No. 2, defendants appeal from an order that, inter alia, granted in part plaintiff's motion for class certification and certified two classes of plaintiffs, one seeking damages for alleged loss in property values, and the other seeking damages for alleged loss of quality of life.

134 A.D.3d 1535

Contrary to defendants' contention in appeal No. 1, we conclude that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's cross motion for an extension of time in which to seek class certification. "While class certification is an issue that should be determined promptly (see CPLR 902 ), a trial court has discretion to extend the deadline upon good cause shown" (Rodriguez v. Metropolitan Cable Communications, 79 A.D.3d 841, 842, 913 N.Y.S.2d 292 ; see CPLR 2004 ). Here, plaintiff made a showing of good cause by submitting evidence that further discovery was needed and that plaintiff had agreed to defendants' request to delay discovery until a criminal proceeding against defendants was complete (see Chavarria v. Crest Hollow Country Club at Woodbury, Inc., 109 A.D.3d 634, 634, 970 N.Y.S.2d 884 ; Rodriguez, 79 A.D.3d at 842, 913 N.Y.S.2d 292 ; see generally Galdamez v. Biordi Constr. Corp., 50 A.D.3d 357, 358, 855 N.Y.S.2d 104 ). Furthermore, plaintiff established that she "had a good-faith belief that a motion for class action certification made at the close of discovery would be deemed timely" (Argento v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 66 A.D.3d 930, 933, 888 N.Y.S.2d 117 ).

In appeal No. 2,...