Dabrowski v. Abax Inc.

Dabrowski v. Abax Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 02642 · Appellate Division, First Department · May 1, 2025 · No. Index No. 106778/07; Appeal No. 4268; Case No. 2024-04933

Summary

This Appellate Division, First Department order affirms the trial court's denial of defendants' motion to decertify a class action and dismiss the lawsuit. The court determined that the defendants failed to meet their burden under CPLR 902 to show that class treatment was no longer appropriate, particularly concerning whether the underlying projects qualified as public work subject to prevailing wage laws. Based on contractual funding sources and municipal health mandates, the court concluded that class certification remains valid and dismissal is unwarranted.

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Moulton, J.P.; Friedman; Kapnick; Shulman; O'Neill Levy
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
May 1, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 106778/07; Appeal No. 4268; Case No. 2024-04933
Procedural posture
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County order denying defendants' motion to decertify and dismiss the class action.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Abax Incorporated et al., John Doe Bonding Companies 1-20., Defendants v. Jerzy Dabrowski et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

class actionscivil procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate procedureemployment lawgovernment contractsmunicipal law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion to decertify the class and dismiss the class action.

Holdings

  1. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to decertify and dismissal, holding that class certification remains appropriate.

Key quotations

"CPLR 902 allows the trial court to decertify the class at any time before a decision on the merits if it becomes apparent that class treatment is inapposite" (City of New York v. Maul, 14 NY3d 499, 514 [2010]; see CPLR 902; Matter of Colt Indus. Shareholder Litig., 77 NY2d 185, 196 [1991]). (at 1)
"The test to determine whether a particular project is subject to the prevailing wage requirements of Labor Law § 220 must be applied on a case‑by‑case basis" (De La Cruz, 21 NY3d at 538). (at 1)

Factual background

The plaintiffs, a class of residents alleging exposure to lead‑based paint, sued Abax Incorporated and related defendants. The defendants relied on a December 2004 contract with the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) that paid the contractor from public funds and, if available, federal Community Development Block Grant funds. The contract’s purpose was to protect public health, and the City’s administrative code defines lead‑paint hazards as dangerous to life and health.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, New York County denied the defendants' motion to decertify the class and to dismiss the class action. The defendants appealed that order to the Appellate Division, First Department.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…