Case ID: ad3d_90/html/1626-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Memorandum: \n      Green and Martoche, JJ. (dissenting in part).", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christina G. Cagnina, Appellant, v Onondaga County et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
    [936 NYS2d 426]
   Memorandum:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, a declaration that various sections of the assigned counsel plan in defendant Onondaga County (County) were invalid. Defendant Onondaga County Bar Association Assigned Counsel Program, Inc., incorrectly sued as the Assigned Counsel Program, Inc. (ACP), established the assigned counsel plan (hereafter, ACP Plan) pursuant to County Law article 18-B through a contract with defendant Onondaga County Bar Association (OCBA). Defendants moved for partial summary judgment dismissing the complaint against OCBA and three causes of action, including one seeking a declaratory judgment, against the remaining defendants.

For the reasons set forth in Roulan v County of Onondaga (90 AD3d 1617 [2011]), we conclude that Supreme Court erred in granting the motion in its entirety. As we concluded in Roulan, section D (2) under the “Assignment by Court and Client Eligibility” heading of the ACP Plan should be declared invalid. Although plaintiff did not cross-move for summary judgment on the declaratory judgment cause of action, CPLR 3212 (b) permits us to search the record and to grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party where, as here, it appears that a nonmoving party is entitled to such relief. We therefore modify the order by denying that part of defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the declaratory judgment cause of action, vacating the third ordering paragraph, reinstating that cause of action and declaring that the ACP Plan is valid with the exception of section D (2) under the “Assignment by Court and Client Eligibility” heading. We further modify the order by granting judgment in favor of plaintiff and declaring that section D (2) under the “Assignment by Court and Client Eligibility” heading of the ACP Plan is invalid.

All concur except Green and Martoche, JJ., who dissent in part and vote to modify in accordance with the following memorandum.

Green and Martoche, JJ. (dissenting in part).

We respectfully dissent in part. We agree with the majority except insofar as the majority concludes that section C (4) under the “Assignment by Court and Client Eligibility” heading of the assigned counsel plan established by defendant Onondaga County Bar Association Assigned Counsel Program, Inc., incorrectly sued as the Assigned Counsel Program, Inc. (hereafter, ACP Plan), is valid (see Roulan v County of Onondaga, 90 AD3d 1617 [2011, Green and Martoche, JJ., dissenting]). We therefore would further modify the order by declaring that section C (4) under the “Assignment by Court and Client Eligibility” heading of the ACP Plan is invalid. Present — Scudder, PJ., Smith, Green, Gorski and Martoche, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 33031(U).]