Vasquez v. National Securities Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vasquez v. National Securities Corp.

139 A.D.3d 503, 29 N.Y.S.3d 809

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 12, 2016

Docket585 155613/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 503 (Vasquez v. National Securities Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vasquez v. National Securities Corp., 139 A.D.3d 503, 29 N.Y.S.3d 809 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered May 4, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion to give notice of the impending dismissal of the complaint to putative class members pursuant to CPLR 908, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly required notice of the impending dismissal of the putative class action even though the class had not been certified. The court correctly relied on our decision in Avena v Ford Motor Co. (85 AD2d 149 [1st Dept 1982]), the subsequent amendment of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 23 (e) to restrict the notice requirement to dismissals, discontinuances and compromises of “certified class” actions notwithstanding. The legislature, presumably aware of the law as stated in Avena, has not amended CPLR 908 to conform to the federal statute. Although defendant-appellant raises policy arguments in support of its position, its remedy lies with the legislature and not with this Court (see Bright Homes v Wright, 8 NY2d 157, 162 [1960]).

We have considered defendant-appellant’s other contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered May 4, 2015, which granted plaintiff’s motion to give notice of the impending dismissal of the complaint to putative class members pursuant to CPLR 908, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly required notice of the impending dismissal of the putative class action even though the class had not been certified. The court correctly relied on our decision in Avena v Ford Motor Co. (85 AD2d 149 [1st Dept 1982]), the subsequent amendment of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 23 (e) to restrict the notice requirement to dismissals, discontinuances and compromises of “certified class” actions notwithstanding. The legislature, presumably aware of the law as stated in Avena, has not amended CPLR 908 to conform to the federal statute. Although defendant-appellant raises policy arguments in support of its position, its remedy lies with the legislature and not with this Court (see Bright Homes v Wright, 8 NY2d 157, 162 [1960]).

We have considered defendant-appellant’s other contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Saxe and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 503, 29 N.Y.S.3d 809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-v-national-securities-corp-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack