Royster v. Consolidated Edison

• Decision Date: 16 June 1982
• Parties: James A. ROYSTER, Claimant, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON, Defendant.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 146

452 N.Y.S.2d 146

114 Misc.2d 529

James A. ROYSTER, Claimant, v. CONSOLIDATED EDISON, Defendant.

Civil Court of the City of New York New York County, Small Claims Part.

June 16, 1982.

James A. Royster, pro se.

Ernest J. Williams, New York City (Ronald A. P. Rock, New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

DAVID B. SAXE, Judge.

The application of sound legal doctrine to particular facts sometimes produces striking injustice.

Consider the following facts: Back on August 15, 1977, Mr. James A. Royster of 119 West 137th Street, New York, New York brought a $68.00 suit against Con Edison for food loss resulting from the infamous "blackout" of 1977.

On November 16, 1978, Mr. Royster's case was tried at the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court, New York County. He won, based upon a decision rendered in a companion case, Lee v. Consolidated Edison, 95 Misc.2d 120, 407 N.Y.S.2d 777 (Civ.Ct.N.Y.Co.1978), which held that the blackout and the resulting economic loss were the result of negligence on the part of Con Edison. Royster and others had apparently entered into a stipulation to be bound by the decision in the Lee case. The Lee case was appealed to the Appellate Term which reversed the decision of the Small Claims Court and held that since the SmallClaims Court had specifically found that Con Edison was not guilty of any act of gross negligence, the complaint must be dismissed. 98 Misc.2d 304, 413 N.Y.S.2d 826 (AT 1, 1978). On April 5, 1979 Con Edison made a motion to dismiss Royster's case based upon the holding of the Appellate Term in its Lee decision. The motion was granted on October 16, 1979.

On November 19, 1981, the Court of Appeals decided the case of Food Pageant, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co., Inc., 54 N.Y.2d 167, 445 N.Y.S.2d 60, 429 N.E.2d 738 (1981).

The Court upheld a 1979 jury verdict finding Con Edison to have acted with gross negligence in connection with the 1977 blackout.

On February 1, 1982, Mr. Royster, once again, appeared in Small Claims Court. Apparently, having heard of the resounding success of Food Pageant, claimant Royster argued that since the highest Court of this state had upheld a jury determination finding Con Edison to have been grossly negligent (a necessary predicate for recovery against Con Edison, Lee v. Consolidated Edison, supra, 98 Misc.2d 304, 413 N.Y.S.2d 826, 306 (AT 1, 1978)), he should now be entitled to recover for his loss.

Unlike many other plaintiffs whose suits had been stayed pending the decision of the Court of Appeals in Food Pageant, Inc., supra, it appears that neither Mr. Royster nor any of the original Small Claims Court consumers whose cases were heard in connection with the Lee appeal, ever appealed from the Appellate Term's reversal of their original success in Small Claims Court.

Con Edison, apparently unmoved by the perceived equity of claimant Royster's position moved to dismiss his claim on essentially two theories: (1) that the present action is barred on the grounds that it was tried to conclusion and dismissed (res judicata); and (2) that his "new" action is barred by a three-year statute of limitations, which expired on July 13, 1980, three years after the blackout of July 13, 1977 (CPLR Sec. 214).

Res judicata is a judicially created doctrine that dictates that once a matter has been litigated or has otherwise gone to judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction, the controversy should be laid to rest and the judgment should be given conclusive effect as to the parties to that litigation. See generally,Developments in the Law--Res Judicata, 65 Harv.L.Rev. 818 (1952); 46 Am.Jur.2d Judgments, Sec. 395 (1969). Nevertheless, res judicata is purely a rule of judicial administration to be applied like all such rules, as considerations of justice and policy require. It is grounded in the need for putting an end to litigation. See Note: 65 Harv.L.Rev. 818 supra; Doherty v. Cuomo, 76 A.D.2d 14, 430 N.Y.S.2d 168 (4th Dept. 1980). The question in any controversy surrounding the application of this doctrine involves balancing considerations of justice and convenience, "... between stopping litigation and stopping the showing of truth." Angel v. Bullington, 330 U.S. 183, 204, 67 S.Ct. 657, 668, 91 L.Ed. 832 (Dissenting opinion of Rutledge, J.).

Res judicata is applied even if a subsequent change in the decisional law occurs. Slater v. American Mineral Spirits Co., 33 N.Y.2d 443, 354 N.Y.S.2d 620, 310 N.E.2d 300 (1974). In this case, I am not confronted, however, by a change in the decisional or common law as a result of the Court of Appeals decision in Food Pageant, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison, Inc., supra. Instead, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury's determination of liability against Con Edison arising out of its actions in connection with the blackout of 1977.

But, under New York City Civil Court Act (NYCCA), Section 1808, it is stated that a Small Claims judgment "may be pleaded as res judicata only as to the amount involved in the particular action and shall not otherwise be deemed an adjudication of any fact at issue or found therein in any other action or court." The language is intended to reassure both sides to a Small Claims dispute that it will "carry no unexpected consequences beyond the matter at issue," Siegel, New York Practice, Sec. 585. It has been held that if a plaintiff loses a small claims suit to a defendant, that loss precludes the plaintiff from suing the defendant for the same thing again even in the regular day session of the Court. Id.; Rosen v. Parking Garage, 40 Misc.2d 178, 242 N.Y.S. 677 (N.Y.Civ.Ct., 1963). It would seem therefore that although the statute says there is no "res judicata" in that instance, the Court in effect held that there is. Siegel, supra Sec. 585; 64 West Park Ave. Corp. v. Parlong Realty Corp., 77 Misc.2d 1019, 354 N.Y.S.2d 1019 (Supreme Court, Special Term, Nassau County, 1974). Thus, Section 1808 does not divest a Small Claims judgment of "res judicata" effect, but rather of "collateral estoppel" use. Siegel, supra Sec. 585, Sec. 443. In this case there is an attempt by Royster to duplicate the claim in full and therefore its relitigation would seem to be barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

It has been noted that the application of res judicata may be modified "when unique facts warrant it." Id. at sec. 585. Certain factors, such as the difficulty that the original Small Claims consumers must have had in proving gross negligence against Con Edison as well as the stay of all proceedings brought subsequent to the jury's verdict in Food Pageant, Inc. v. Consolidated Edison Co., Inc., supra, while that case was appealed, lend some merit to the conclusion that rules requiring finality should be scrutinized with greater judicial flexibility.

Common sense and justice appear to require that individuals such as Mr. Royster, be made whole to the same extent as those individuals or businesses who started suits against Con Edison, obtained stays while Food Pageant v. Con Edison, supra, moved through the New York courts, and now may utilize the doctrine of collateral estoppel "offensively" to prevent relitigation of the issues of gross negligence on the part of Con...