NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A10335
SPONSOR: Solages TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to certif-
ication of class actions in cases involving governmental operations
PURPOSE:
To provide that a court may not deny or withhold class certification
solely because the action involves governmental operations. This bill
will not require the court to certify a class.
SUMMARY:
Section 1. Amends section 902 of the civil practice law and rules, as
amended by chapter 474 of the laws of 1975.
Section 2. Sets the effective date
JUSTIFICATION:
In New York State, courts have generally been unwilling to certify a
class action when governmental operations are involved, reasoning that a
class action is not superior to other available methods to litigants.
The idea that the government is a special litigant is incorrect and
unjust - all New Yorkers should be able to stand equally before the
courts. Low-income and older New Yorkers are more likely to be a plain-
tiff in a class action suit due to a lack of resources to bring individ-
ual actions. Making it harder to bring justice when government agencies
act illegally only further enables them to continue harmful practices.
This legislation seeks to prevent a court from denying or withholding
class certification solely because a lawsuit involves governmental oper-
ations and allow all New Yorkers the opportunity to seek justice while
streamlining the litigation process in the courts.
Moreover, it is often the case that persons who are similarly situated
to the plaintiff in a lawsuit already filed are individuals who are
low-income, elderly, or disabled, in which it would be increasingly
difficult to pursue actions. Class action is the best method to protect
these potential class members. Finally, even if a person were able to
obtain free legal representation for their individual claims, the multi-
plicity of lawsuits seeking the identical relief can give rise to incon-
sistent rulings by various state courts. This results in unnecessary
expenditure of energy and judicial resources, forcing the legal service
bar, the Attorney General's office and the courts repeatedly to litigate
and decide the same issues of law. Despite the assumption, made evident
by courts refusing to certify, that governmental agencies follow the
rules of law laid down by the legislature and court decisions, potential
class members continually confront the reality that successes in non-
class actions are applied only to the individually named plaintiffs
rather than to all those similarly situated.
This bill will conform the law to the principal that all litigants stand
equally before the courts; allow redress to all citizens who are harmed
when government agencies act illegally; reduce litigation expenses and
the filing of multiple lawsuits challenging the same illegal conduct;
and provide a state recourse as litigants are currently compelled to
pursue their class action claims at the federal level, where this rule
does not apply.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT:
Government agencies that act illegally most severely harm low-income
communities of color. Further, individuals with less resources are more
likely to enter into a class action lawsuit because they are unable to
take individual action.
We have witnessed class action lawsuits go forward to address discrimi-
nation and low standards of care that impact the most vulnerable such as
in the cases of Merton Simpson v. Department of Civil Service, City of
New York v. Maul, Fleming v. Barnwell Nursing Home & Health Facilities,
and Brad H. v. City of New York
1.
This bill will ensure that New Yorkers will be able to stand equally and
before the courts collectively in instances of injustice involving
governmental operations.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
1995-96: A4933; passed Assembly.
1997-98: A3289; passed Assembly.
1999-2000: A3299; passed Assembly.
2001-02: A7700; passed Assembly.
2003-04: A5942; passed Assembly.
2005-06: A6929; passed Assembly.
2007-08: A4131; passed Assembly.
2009-10: A5019; passed Assembly.
2011-12: A2334; passed Assembly.
2013-14: A6871; advanced to third reading.
2015-16: A2191; advanced to third reading.
2017-18: A3181; referred to Codes.
2019-20: A2446; referred to Codes.
2021-22: A6501; passed Assembly.
2023-24: A8609; vetoed by governor
2025-26: A1550/S6975; vetoed by governor
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.
(1) https://www.osc.ny.gov/unclaimed-funds/claimants/ matter-merton-
simpson-v-department-civil-service
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
10335
IN ASSEMBLY
February 20, 2026
___________
Introduced by M. of A. SOLAGES -- read once and referred to the Commit-
tee on Codes
AN ACT to amend the civil practice law and rules, in relation to certif-
ication of class actions in cases involving governmental operations
The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-bly, do enact as follows:
1 Section 1. Section 902 of the civil practice law and rules, as amended
2 by chapter 474 of the laws of 1975, is amended to read as follows:
3 § 902. Order allowing class action. Within sixty days after the time
4 to serve a responsive pleading has expired for all persons named as
5 defendants in an action brought as a class action, the plaintiff shall
6 move for an order to determine whether it is to be so maintained. An
7 order under this section may be conditional, and may be altered or
8 amended before the decision on the merits on the court's own motion or
9 on motion of the parties. The action may be maintained as a class
10 action only if the court finds that the prerequisites under section 901
11 have been satisfied. Among the matters which the court shall consider
12 in determining whether the action may proceed as a class action are:
13 1. the interest of members of the class in individually controlling
14 the prosecution or defense of separate actions;
15 2. the impracticability or inefficiency of prosecuting or defending
16 separate actions;
17 3. the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy
18 already commenced by or against members of the class;
19 4. the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation
20 of the claim in the particular forum;
21 5. the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a
22 class action.
23 However, a court shall not deny or withhold class certification solely
24 because the action involves governmental operations.
25 § 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[] is old law to be omitted.
LBD03313-02-6
