Opinion
No. 2008-10448.
September 14, 2010.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for inverse condemnation, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), dated November 5, 2009, which denied their motion, among other things, for class action certification pursuant to CPLR article 9, and denied their separate motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint.
Kirkland Ellis LLP, New York, N.Y. (Joseph Serino, Jr., William Pratt, and Susan E. Engel, and Patrick F. Philbin, Washington, D.C., pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellants-respondents.
Law Offices of David M. Wise, P.A., Babylon, N.Y. and Reilly Like Tenety, Babylon, N.Y. (Irving Like of counsel), for respondents-appellants (one brief filed).
Before: Dillon, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Sgroi, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint is dismissed, as academic; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants. Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied their motion, inter alia, for class action certification. The Supreme Court properly found that the proposed class definition was overbroad ( see Klein v Robert's Am. Gourmet Food, Inc., 28 AD3d 63, 71). Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish that questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members (see CPLR 901 [a] [2]; Morrissey v Nextel Partners, Inc., 72 AD3d 209; Solomon v Bell Atl. Corp., 9 AD3d 49, 53; Hazelhurst v Brita Prods. Co., 295 AD2d 240, 241-242; Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 252 AD2d 1, 9, affd 94 NY2d 43; Mitchell v Barrios-Paoli, 253 AD2d 281, 291), and that their claims or defenses were typical of those of the class ( see CPLR 901 [a] [3]; Dimich v Med-Pro, Inc., 34 AD3d 329, 330; Ross v Amrep Corp., 57 AD2d 99, 102-103).
The appeal from so much of the order as denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the first amended complaint has been rendered academic in light of our determination on a companion appeal ( see Corsello v Verizon N.Y., Inc., ___ AD3d ___, 2010 NY Slip Op 06562 [decided herewith]).