commonality requirement in New York

2009CPLR 901 (a) (2) directs the court to determine whether “there are questions of law or fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” “[T]he decision as to whether there are common predominating questions of fact or law so as to support a class action should not be determined by any mechanical test, but rather, ‘whether the use of a class action would achieve economies of time, effort, and expense, and promote uniformity of decision as to persons similarly situated.’ ” (Friar, 78 AD2d at 97 [citations and internal quotation marks omitted].) De

2005In addition, we note that the commonality requirement set forth in CPLR 901 (a) (2) “requires predominance, not identity or unanimity, among class members” (Friar v Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 AD2d 83, 98 [1980]), and here the common questions of law and fact concern defendants’ alleged common use of a methodology to manipulate the figure upon which plaintiffs’ royalties were based.

2026The commonality requirement of CPLR 901(a)(2) "cannot be determined by any mechanical test," and "the fact that questions peculiar to each individual may remain after resolution of the common questions is not fatal to the class action" ( City of New York v Maul , 14 NY3d at 514 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2026The commonality requirement of CPLR 901(a)(2) "cannot be determined by any mechanical test," and "the fact that questions peculiar to each individual may remain after resolution of the common questions is not fatal to the class action" ( City of New York v Maul , 14 NY3d at 514 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023CPLR § 901(a)(2), the commonality requirement, requires that questions of law or fact common to the class outnumber any questions affecting individual class members ( Pludeman at 422).

2013The issues of when defendant received J-51 benefits, whether defendant deregulated apartments while receiving those benefits, which tenants resided in those apartments during those time periods, and whether defendant wrongfully charged market rents while accepting J-51 benefits are common issues that “predominate,” thereby meeting the commonality requirement of CPLR 901 (a) (2) (see id. at 423 ).

2013The need to conduct individualized damages inquiries does not obviate the utility of the class mechanism for this action, given the predominant common issues of liability (see Godwin Realty Assoc. v CATV Enters., 275 AD2d 269, 270 [1st Dept 2000]; Pruitt v Rockefeller Ctr.

2013The need to conduct individualized damages inquiries does not obviate the utility of the class mechanism for this action, given the predominant common issues of liability (see Godwin Realty Assoc. v CATV Enters., 275 AD2d 269, 270 [1st Dept 2000]; Pruitt v Rockefeller Ctr.

2025Assoc., L.P., 24 NY3d 382, 399 [2014]).

2025Assoc., L.P., 24 NY3d 382, 399 [2014]).

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]).