Glaves-Morgan v. The City of New York et al
Filing
37
OPINION ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND AMENDMENT OF MARCH 21,2012 OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' request for reconsideration is GRANTED. This Opinion and Order amends and modifies the March 21 Order to the extent set out above. (Signed by Judge Harold Baer on 4/1/2012) (cd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
:
SANDRA GLAVES-MORGAN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
- against :
:
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ROBERT DOAR,
:
THOMAS DEPIPPO, and JOHN and JANE DOE,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------x
11 CV 1248 (HB)
OPINION ON MOTION
TO RECONSIDER AND
AMENDMENT OF
MARCH 21, 2012
OPINION AND ORDER
Hon. Harold Baer, Jr., District Judge:
In an Opinion and Order dated March 21, 2012 (“March 21 Order”), I ruled on the
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part. Defendants
sought summary judgment on Plaintiff’s New York Civil Service Law claims on the ground that
Plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim. I denied summary judgment because Defendants’ had not
shown that a notice of claim was required in this instance. Defendants now move for
reconsideration of the March 21 Order pursuant to Local Rule 6.3. For the reasons that follow,
the Defendants’ request for reconsideration is GRANTED, and, upon reconsideration, my
Opinion of March 21—as supplemented by this Opinion—remains the same.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has brought claims against the City of New York and its employees pursuant to
the New York State Civil Service Law, N.Y. Civ. Serv. Law §§ 75-b, 80 (McKinney). Section
75-b is the state’s whistleblower statute, prohibiting retaliation for reporting wrongdoing. Section
80 sets forth procedures for demoting and reducing the salary of civil service employees.
Defendants cite the New York General Municipal Law, N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law §§ 50-i, 50-e
(McKinney), and argue that Plaintiff was required to file a notice of claim. Section 50-e provides
the procedural mechanism for filing a notice of claim when required. Section 50-i requires notice
for tort claims “for personal injury, wrongful death or damage to real or personal property
1
alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence or wrongful act” of the City. Id. §
50-i(1).
In the March 21 Order, I held that Defendants had not met their burden to show that a
notice of claim was required. I noted that Plaintiff seeks both equitable relief and damages and
cited People United for Children, Inc. v. City of New York, 108 F. Supp. 2d 275, 301 (S.D.N.Y.
2000) (holding that a notice of claim is not required “where the primary relief being sought is
equitable in nature, and monetary damages are only incidental”). Defendants argue that my
reliance on People United is misplaced because this exception to the notice of claim requirement
is narrow and inapplicable here. Defendants argue that People United rests on distinguishable
facts; the plaintiff in that case brought a declaratory judgment action whereas here Plaintiff seeks
a damage award that cannot be seen as incidental to her request for equitable relief.
II.
DISCUSSION
A motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3 is appropriate only where “the moving
party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other
words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” In re
BDC 56 LLC, 330 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted);
see also Eisemann v. Greene, 204 F.3d 393, 395 n.2 (2d Cir. 2000). The Rule must be “narrowly
construed and strictly applied so as to avoid repetitive arguments on issues that have been
considered fully by the Court.” DGM Invs., Inc. v. N.Y. Futures Exch., Inc., 288 F. Supp. 2d 519,
523 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The purpose of this restrictive application of the Rules is, among other
things, “to ensure the finality of decisions.” Wiltshire v. Williams, No. 10 Civ. 6947, 2012 WL
899383, at *2 (Mar. 16, 2012); see also In re Health Mgmt. Sys., Sec. Litig., 113 F. Supp. 2d 613,
614 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (noting that reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy to be employed
sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of scarce judicial resources”). The decision
of whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration lies within the sound discretion of the
district court. McCarthy v. Manson, 714 F.2d 234, 237 (2d Cir. 1983); Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., 08-CV-5520 (BSJ), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
45819, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2009). The standard for granting a motion for reconsideration is
strict, however, a court may grant a motion for reconsideration “to correct a clear error or prevent
manifest injustice.” Doe v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 709 F.2d 782, 789 (2d Cir. 1983)
2
(quotation marks and citation omitted); see also U.S. Titan, Inc. v. Guangzhou Men Hua
Shipping Co., Ltd., 182 F.R.D. 97, 100 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), aff’d, 241 F.3d 135 (2d. Cir. 2001)
(“Local Civil Rule 6.3 provides the Court with an opportunity to correct manifest errors of law or
fact, hear newly discovered evidence, consider a change in the applicable law or prevent
manifest injustice.”).
Defendants argue that the Court relied on a narrow exception to the notice of claim
requirement that is inapplicable in this case. Plaintiff does seek damages, and she restates the
same requested damage award under each of her counts. Her claims brought pursuant to the Civil
Service Law, however, deal with discrete issues that are but a subset of her case—the relief for
which is largely equitable. The Defendants’ request for reconsideration is therefore reasonable,
but reconsideration does not presage a different result or change my holding that a notice of
claim was not required. “[T]he applicability of [§ 50-i] is confined to tort claims for personal
injury, wrongful death, or damage to property and not to torts generally.” Mills v. Cnty of
Monroe, 453 N.Y.S.2d 486, 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982), aff’d, 451 N.E.2d 456 (1983). In Mills,
the court nonetheless found that a notice of claim was required under a more expansive law
applicable to suits against counties. See id. (“Section 52 of the County Law requires a notice of
claim to be served upon a county in any ‘claim for damages arising at law or in equity’ . . . .”). A
notice of claim is required for a § 75-b action against school districts. See Moore v. Middletown
Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 871 N.Y.S.2d 211, 212 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) (citing N.Y. Educ. Law
§ 3813(1) (McKinney)); accord Smith v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Educ., 808 F. Supp. 2d 569, 583
(S.D.N.Y. 2011). Section 3813(1) of the Education Law requires a notice of claim for actions
against schools “for any cause whatever”. Similarly, a notice of claim may be required for a §
75-b action against a public utility authority. See Roens v. New York City Transit Auth., 609
N.Y.S.2d 6, 7 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) (citing N.Y. Pub. Auth. Law § 1212 (McKinney)).
Defendants have not shown—now or in their papers or at oral argument—that Plaintiff’s
Civil Service Law claims are torts under § 50-i or that there is a broader statutory requirement
elsewhere that is applicable to suits against the City.1 Certain of the cases cited by Defendants
required a notice of claim for torts specifically or where there was a more expansive statute than
1
In their memorandum in support of the motion for summary judgment, Defendants do cite one other statute. See
Defs.’ Supp. 21 (citing “NY CLS Unconsol Ch 214-A, § 20”). This statute is applies to suits against public benefit
corporations. See, e.g., Feuer v. N.Y. City Health & Hosps. Corp. et al., 657 N.Y.S.2d 283 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1996).
3
§ 50-i. See, e.g., Parochial Bus Sys., Inc.
Y.
Bd. ofEduc. ofCity ofNew York, 458 N.E.2d 1241
(1983) (concerning § 3813 of the Education Law). The remaining cases are unpersuasive and are
not binding on this Court. Defendants cite Donas v, City ofNew York, 878 N.Y.S.2d 360 (N.Y.
App. Div. 2009), for the proposition that a notice of claim is required for a § 75-b action against
the City, but Donas merely affirms the lower court's decision dismissing a complaint where the
plaintiff failed to overcome the one-year statute of limitations of § 75-b. Donas cites a personal
injury tort case but does not otherwise provide any reasoning for why a § 75-b action against the
City falls under § SO-e notice requirements. The plaintiff in Donas did file a notice of claim,
however, the lower court's discussion of the notice of claim was for the purpose of determining
whether the § 75-b action was time barred. See Donas v. City ofNew York, No. 0 I00977/2006,
2008 WL 293038 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 21,2008). While the resolution of this claim may not be
one of first impression, I cannot find any case that provides a reasoned justification for applying
the notice of claim requirement for a narrow subset of torts to the Civil Service Law claims
Plaintiff now brings. Cf Pratt v. Indian River Cent. Sch. Dist., 803 F. Supp.2d 135, 146
(N.D.N.Y. 2011) ("[T]he Notice of Claim requirements set forth in N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law §§ 50-e
and 50-i apply only to tort actions."); Phaler
Y,
Hicks, 419 N.Y.S.2d 394, 395 (N.Y. App. Div.
1979) (holding that the notice of claim requirement under the Education Law was broader than
under the County Law). Reconsideration on the issue of whether the exception under People
United applies here would therefore have no effect on my denial of summary judgment. Further
and without going into detail, suffice it to say, that policy considerations and in particular the
broad sweep of the state laws under which Plaintiff asserts her rights, more expansive than the
federal scheme, would likely only add to the correctness of this result.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' request for reconsideration is GRANTED. This
Opinion and Order amends and modifies the March 21 Order to the extent set out above.
SO ORDERED.
April..L,2012
New York, New York
HAROLD BAER, JR.
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?