Nonnon v. City of New York
| Citation | 874 N.E.2d 720,9 N.Y.3d 825 |
| Parties | Patricia NONNON, Individually and as Executrix of Kerri Nonnon, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant. (And Other Actions.) |
| Decision Date | 27 June 2007 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.
This litigation concerns the 81-acre Pelham Bay Landfill, owned and operated by the City of New York, and officially closed in 1978 after allegations of illegal dumping of pollutants. In 1982, the City determined that the landfill's surface water and groundwater contained contaminants that exceeded state standards, and in 1983 the facility was listed as an inactive hazardous waste disposal site. Plaintiffs are children and adults (and their families or executors) who live or lived within one mile of the landfill and developed acute lymphoid leukemia or Hodgkin's disease. Between 1991 and 1993, they brought nine lawsuits (since consolidated) alleging that the City's negligence in creating and maintaining the landfill resulted in elevated levels of toxic substances that caused their injuries or deaths.
On September 29, 2000, the City moved both pursuant to CPLR 3211 and 3212 to dismiss several claims as barred by the statute of limitations, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaints as failing to state a cause of action. The City asserted that its 3211(a)(7) motion was based on plaintiffs' "inability to assert a causal connection between defendant's conduct and the many injuries from which they purportedly suffer."
Both the City and plaintiffs submitted expert affidavits addressed to causation. The trial court denied the City's CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion and the Appellate Division, with two justices dissenting, modified.* We now affirm solely on procedural grounds.
On a CPLR 3211 motion to dismiss, the court will "accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory" (Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 [1994]). While affidavits may be considered, if the motion has not been converted to a CPLR 3212 motion for summary judgment, they are generally intended to remedy pleading defects and not to offer evidentiary support for properly pleaded claims (see Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 635-636, 389...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krause v. Lancer
...to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the facts pleaded are presumed to be true and are accorded every favorable inference ( see Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 825, 842 N.Y.S.2d 756, 874 N.E.2d 720 [2007];Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87–88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 [1994] ). However, allegat......
-
Baines v. Daily News L.P.
...only if the complaint fails to allege facts that fit within any cognizable legal theory. 26 N.Y.S.3d 663Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 825, 827, 842 N.Y.S.2d 756, 874 N.E.2d 720 (2007) ; Goldman v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 N.Y.3d 561, 570–71, 807 N.Y.S.2d 583, 841 N.E.2d 742 (200......
-
Application Of Olga Kobiashvili v. Jacobi Med. Ctr.
...2009 NY Slip Op 33237Application of OLGA KOBIASHVILI, Petitioner, v.JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER, NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Respondents.Index No.:13000/09Motion Cal. No.:27Motion Seq. ...See, Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 825 (2007); Zumpano v. Quinn, 6 N.Y.3d 666 (2006); AG Capital Funding ......
-
Smith v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth.
...complaint, unlike defendant supporting the motion, may supplementPage 10her pleading with admissible evidence. Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.3d 825, 827 (2007); Cron v. Hararo Fabrics, 91 N.Y.2d 362, 366 & n. (1998); Ray v. Ray, 108 A.D.3d 449, 452 (1st Dep't 2013); Thomas v. Thomas, 70......
-
Expert witnesses
...v. Wesley , 83 N.Y.2d 417, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97 (1994); Nonnon v. Cty. of New York, 32 A.D.3d 91, 819 N.Y.S.2d 705 (1st Dept. 2006), aff ’d, 9 N.Y.3d 825, 842 N.Y.S.2d 756 (2007) (toxic substances); Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 16 A.D.3d 648, 793 N.Y.S.2d 434 (2d Dept. 2005) (toxic tort case), aff......
-
Expert witnesses
...of N. Am., LLC , 26 N.Y.3d 801, 48 N.E.3d 937 (2016); Nonnon v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 91, 819 N.Y.S.2d 705 (1st Dept. 2006), af ’d 9 N.Y.3d 825, 842 N.Y.S.2d 756 (2007) (toxic substances); Parker EXPERT WITNESSES 16-47 EXPERT WITNESSES §16:140 v. Mobil Oil Corp., 16 A.D.3d 648, 793 N.......
-
Expert witnesses
...of N. Am., LLC , 26 N.Y.3d 801, 48 N.E.3d 937 (2016); Nonnon v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 91, 819 N.Y.S.2d 705 (1st Dept. 2006), af ’d 9 N.Y.3d 825, 842 N.Y.S.2d 756 (2007) (toxic substances); Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 16 A.D.3d 648, 793 N.Y.S.2d 434 (2d Dept. 2005) (toxic tort case) af ......
-
Expert witnesses
...v. Wesley , 83 N.Y.2d 417, 611 N.Y.S.2d 97 (1994); Nonnon v. City of New York, 32 A.D.3d 91, 819 N.Y.S.2d 705 (1st Dept. 2006), aff’d 9 N.Y.3d 825, 842 N.Y.S.2d 756 (2007) (toxic substances); Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 16 A.D.3d 648, 793 N.Y.S.2d 434 (2d Dept. 2005) (toxic tort case) aff’d ......