typicality requirement in New York

2023When it is demonstrated that a plaintiff's claims derive from "the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims of other class members and is based upon the same legal theory the typicality requirement is satisfied" (id. at 423 {internal quotation marks omitted].]; Friar at 99; see also Freeman at 1171 ; Ackerman at 201; Pruitt at 22).

2023Indeed, the typicality requirement is met "even if the class representative cannot personally assert all the claims made on behalf of the class" ( Pruitt at 22; see Weinberg at 7 ["Defendant's assertion that plaintiff Weinberg's course of conduct is not typical of the class that he purports to represent because (1) he does not have an individual contract claim, (2) he cannot show on an individual basis reliance as to General Business Law § 349 claims and resulting injury, and (3) as a sophisticated attorney he could not show a lack of meaningful choice, is no basis for denying class action sta

2026“Typicality does not require identity of issues and the typicality requirement is met even if the claims asserted by class members differ from those asserted by other class members.” (Pludeman, 74 AD3d at 423 ).

2024(Id. at 55- 56.) Typicality A plaintiff's claim fulfills the requirement of typicality where it "derives from the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims of other class members and is based upon the same legal theory." (Friar, 78 AD2d at 99 .) "Typicality does not require identity of issues and the typicality requirement is met even if the claims asserted by class members differ from those asserted by other class members." (Pludeman, 74 AD3d at 423 ).

2023When it is demonstrated that a plaintiff's claims derive from "the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims of other class members and is based upon the same legal theory the typicality requirement is satisfied" (id. at 423 {internal quotation marks omitted].]; Friar at 99; see also Freeman at 1171 ; Ackerman at 201; Pruitt at 22).

2004Plaintiff demonstrated the numerosity of the proposed statewide class, the predominance of common questions of law and fact among the claims of the proposed class members which derive from the same practice and conduct of defendants, the typicality of this claim to the claims of the proposed class members, adequacy of representation, and the superiority of this method of recovery (CPLR 901 [a]; Ackerman v Price Waterhouse, 252 AD2d 179, 191 [1998]), considering the relatively small potential recovery for each individual member of the class (Jim & Phil’s Family Pharm. v Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 2

2015Assoc., L.P., 24 NY3d 382, 399 ; see generally City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d 499, 514 ). -3- 1340 CA 15-00297 We also reject defendants’ contention that plaintiff failed to meet the typicality requirement of CPLR 901 (a) (3).

2015Props., 167 AD2d 14, 22 [1991]; see Borden, 24 NY3d at 399 ).

2024(Id. at 55- 56.) Typicality A plaintiff's claim fulfills the requirement of typicality where it "derives from the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims of other class members and is based upon the same legal theory." (Friar, 78 AD2d at 99 .) "Typicality does not require identity of issues and the typicality requirement is met even if the claims asserted by class members differ from those asserted by other class members." (Pludeman, 74 AD3d at 423 ).

2023When it is demonstrated that a plaintiff's claims derive from "the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the remaining claims of other class members and is based upon the same legal theory the typicality requirement is satisfied" (id. at 423 {internal quotation marks omitted].]; Friar at 99; see also Freeman at 1171 ; Ackerman at 201; Pruitt at 22).

2023Notably, typicality does not require complete identity of issues and the requirement is met even if the claims asserted by class members differ from those asserted by other class members ( Pludeman at 423; Pruitt at 22; Super Glue Corp. v Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. , 132 AD2d 604, 607 [1987]).

2023Notably, typicality does not require complete identity of issues and the requirement is met even if the claims asserted by class members differ from those asserted by other class members ( Pludeman at 423 ; Pruitt at 22 ; Super Glue Corp. v Avis Rent A Car Sys., Inc. , 132 AD2d 604, 607 [1987]).

2023Indeed, the typicality requirement is met "even if the class representative cannot personally assert all the claims made on behalf of the class" ( Pruitt at 22; see Weinberg at 7 ["Defendant's assertion that plaintiff Weinberg's course of conduct is not typical of the class that he purports to represent because (1) he does not have an individual contract claim, (2) he cannot show on an individual basis reliance as to General Business Law § 349 claims and resulting injury, and (3) as a sophisticated attorney he could not show a lack of meaningful choice, is no basis for denying class action sta

2023Indeed, the typicality requirement is met "even if the class representative cannot personally assert all the claims made on behalf of the class" ( Pruitt at 22; see Weinberg at 7) and typicality is not defeated merely because the damages asserted by the class members are incongruous (Godwin Realty Assoc. at 270; Weinberg at 6 ["That individuals who are members of the class might have been subjected to less than all of the conduct complained of is not a ground for denying class action.

2018Regarding the typicality requirement, plaintiffs alleged that their claims arise from "the same course of conduct and are based on the same theories as the other class members" ( DeLuca , 134 AD3d at 1536 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally Freeman , 12 AD3d at 1171).

2015Plaintiff established that the claims of the class representative arose “ ‘out of the same course of conduct and are based on the same theories as the other class members’ ” (Freeman, 12 AD3d at 1171 ).

2023Nor is typicality defeated merely because the damages asserted by the class members are incongruous ( Godwin Realty Assoc. v CATV Enterprises, Inc. , 275 AD2d 269, 270 [1st Dept 2000 ["To the extent that there may be differences among the class members as to the degree in which they were damaged, the court may try the class aspects first and have the individual damage claims heard by a special master or create subclasses."]; Weinberg at 6 ["That individuals who are members of the class might have been subjected to less than all of the conduct complained of is not a ground for denying class act

2023Nor is typicality defeated merely because the damages asserted by the class members are incongruous ( Godwin Realty Assoc. v CATV Enterprises, Inc. , 275 AD2d 269, 270 [1st Dept 2000 ["To the extent that there may be differences among the class members as to the degree in which they were damaged, the court may try the class aspects first and have the individual damage claims heard by a special master or create subclasses."]; Weinberg at 6 ["That individuals who are members of the class might have been subjected to less than all of the conduct complained of is not a ground for denying class act

2018Regarding the typicality requirement, plaintiffs alleged that their claims arise from "the same course of conduct and are based on the same theories as the other class members" ( DeLuca , 134 AD3d at 1536 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see generally Freeman , 12 AD3d at 1171).

2018Plaintiffs also alleged that they can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class inasmuch as they do not have conflicting interests with other class members ( see generally Ferrari, 153 AD3d at 1592 ; Cooper v Sleepy's, LLC , 120 AD3d 742, 744 [2d Dept 2014]).

2015Assoc., L.P., 24 NY3d 382, 399 ; see generally City of New York v Maul, 14 NY3d 499, 514 ). -3- 1340 CA 15-00297 We also reject defendants’ contention that plaintiff failed to meet the typicality requirement of CPLR 901 (a) (3).

2011It is the function of the class action representative to act as a check on the attorneys in order to provide an additional assurance that in any settlement or other disposition the interests of the members of the class will take precedence over those of the attorneys (see Tanzer v Turbodyne Corp., 68 AD2d 614, 620-621 [1979]).