Court Opinion

ID: 9959903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:11:48.94127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.360644
License: Public Domain

New York State Unified Ct. Sys. v New York State
                Pub. Empl. Relations Bd.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31191(U)
                      April 8, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 161972/2023
                  Judge: Arlene P. Bluth
Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
 Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York
 State and local government sources, including the New
  York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.
 This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
                       publication.
                                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 161972/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84                                                                                           RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

                                   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                             NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:             HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH                                            PART                              14
                                                                                      Justice
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X   INDEX NO.          161972/2023
             NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM,
                                                                                                 MOTION DATE             N/A
                                                         Petitioner,
                                                                                                 MOTION SEQ. NO.         002
                                                 -v-
             NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
             BOARD, SUFFOLK COUNTY COURT EMPLOYEES
             ASSOCIATION, INC.,NEW YORK STATE SUPREME
             COURT OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, ILA, LOCAL 2013,
             AFL-CIO, NEW YORK STATE COURT OFFICERS
             ASSOCIATION, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES
             ASSOCIATION, INC.,LOCAL 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO,
                                                                                                   DECISION + ORDER ON
             COURT OFFICERS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF
             NASSAU COUNTY, ASSOCIATION OF SUPREME COURT                                                 MOTION
             REPORTERS, NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
             EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, DISTRICT COUNCIL 37,
             LOCAL 1070, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, COURT ATTORNEYS
             ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK
             STATE COURT CLERKS ASSOCIATION, INC.

                                                         Respondents.
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 46, 47, 48, 49, 50,
            51, 77, 78, 83
            were read on this motion to/for                                             CONSOLIDATE/JOIN FOR TRIAL                 .

                      Petitioner’s motion to consolidate this proceeding with two other proceedings is denied.

            Background

                      In this proceeding, petitioner seeks to challenge a determination made by respondent

            New York State Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) that upheld a decision by an

            Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) concerning petitioner’s COVID-19 testing and vaccination

            policies, but modified the ALJ’s remedy. In this motion, petitioner seeks to consolidate this

             161972/2023 NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM vs. NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC                               Page 1 of 4
             EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 161972/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            proceeding with two other proceedings, both of which were filed before this proceeding. The

            first was filed in Kings County and the second was filed in Suffolk County, although they were

            only commenced a few hours before this proceeding was filed. Petitioner claims that

            consolidation is appropriate here given the common questions of law and fact involving PERB’s

            decision.

            Discussion

                   The general rule is that consolidated disputes should be placed in the county where the

            first action or proceeding was filed (Richardson v Uess Leasing Corp., 191 AD2d 394, 396, 595

            NYS2d 210 [1st Dept 1993]). Petitioner acknowledges this rule but argues that Courts have

            consolidated proceedings in instances where many of the parties reside in a certain county.

            However, the cases petitioner cites for this assertion were plenary actions in which the courts

            considered the convenience of the witnesses and the most practical place to conduct a trial (see

            Gomez v Jersey Coast Egg Producers, Inc., 186 AD2d 629 [2d Dept 1992]; Perinton Associates

            v Heicklen Farms, Inc., 67 AD2d 832 [4th Dept 1979]).

                   The three instant disputes here are all special proceedings, which, in this Court’s view,

            means that considerations about the convenience of the witnesses are irrelevant as special

            proceedings are generally decided based solely on the parties’ papers. And all of the counties in

            which these proceedings were commenced are in relatively close proximity (Kings County,

            Suffolk County and New York County) and yet the instant motion was made in the jurisdiction

            in which the last proceeding was filed. Moreover, each proceeding is e-filed and so there is no

            obstacle to the parties’ ability to file documents. The Court finds that petitioner did not

            adequately explain why consolidation in New York County, as opposed to the other counties, is

             161972/2023 NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM vs. NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC              Page 2 of 4
             EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 161972/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

            appropriate given the clear preference that matters be consolidated in the place where the first

            dispute was filed.

                   Moreover, the response by respondent PERB indicates that consolidation is not

            appropriate. While PERB claims that it does not oppose the instant motion, it demands that this

            Court decline to consolidate its three separate motions to dismiss and that it be permitted to file

            three separate reply briefs. In fact, PERB argues that “The legal issues in the Motions to Dismiss

            are sufficiently distinct to necessitate separate briefing, even if the actions are consolidated for

            other purposes” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 77, ¶ 11). If the issues in these three proceedings require

            PERB to file three separate briefs, then consolidation is not justified here.

                   Of course, as CPLR 602 provides, consolidation may be ordered where there is “a

            common question of law or fact.” A review of the petitions in the three proceedings suggests, as

            PERB argues, that there are separate and distinct issues. In this proceeding, petitioner seeks to

            vacate the decision by PERB and the ALJ. In the Suffolk County proceeding, the Suffolk

            County Court Employees Association, Inc. seeks to reverse PERB’s decision but affirm the

            decision by the ALJ. In the Kings County proceeding, the Association of Supreme Court

            Reporters seeks to challenge its alleged exclusion from the ALJ’s decision.

                   While all of the proceedings concern the same determinations by PERB and the ALJ,

            each involves different aspects of these decisions. In other words, the Court finds that

            consolidation here will not serve to conserve resources. Rather, merging these three separate

            proceedings would likely only serve to create a procedural morass. As PERB observed, it has

            already filed three separate motions to dismiss and it wants to maintain those motions instead of

            consolidating them. This Court wants to avoid creating confusion among these three proceedings

            by consolidating them.

             161972/2023 NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM vs. NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC               Page 3 of 4
             EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET AL
             Motion No. 002

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 161972/2023
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 84                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/08/2024

                   Accordingly, it is hereby

                   ORDERED that the motion to consolidate is denied.

                    4/8/2024                                                             $SIG$
                     DATE                                                        ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.
            CHECK ONE:                 CASE DISPOSED                  X   NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                                                                                   □
                                       GRANTED          X    DENIED       GRANTED IN PART              OTHER

            APPLICATION:               SETTLE ORDER                       SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                                                   □
            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:      INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT        REFERENCE

            161972/2023 NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM vs. NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC               Page 4 of 4
            EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD ET AL
            Motion No. 002

                                                            4 of 4
[* 4]