Assembly adopts bill to bar denial of class certification solely because suit names government

ALBANY, N.Y. — The state Assembly on Monday passed legislation that would prevent New York courts from denying class-action certification solely because a lawsuit is brought against a government entity.

Assemblymember Solange, the bill’s sponsor, told colleagues the measure would remove a special rule that she said treated governments as privileged litigants and limited access to justice for low-income and marginalized New Yorkers. “All we’re saying is that you have to certify all of the other requirements, but just you can’t deny a lawsuit… just because it’s against a governmental operation,” she said.

The measure would amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) to make explicit that a court may not refuse to certify a class only on the basis that the defendant is a government operation. Solange and supporters said the change clarifies access to courts for groups who lack resources to sue individually and does not itself require monetary awards; remedies could include policy or regulatory changes. “This bill doesn’t require any monetary award,” Solange said. “It could just be a change in a regulation or ruling.”

Opponents and skeptics argued the bill would disturb long-standing judicial discretion and could increase litigation costs borne by taxpayers. “Courts have the discretion to address the issues contemplated by this legislation,” said Assemblymember Walsh while explaining her conference would oppose the bill. She cited the governor’s veto message from the prior year and the long-established case law that governs certification. Assemblymember Angelino, who voted no, said he expected the governor might veto the bill again and raised concerns about potential class actions from groups such as corrections officers.

Debate touched on existing CPLR standards for class certification — numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation — and a set of judicial exceptions that, speakers said, already allow courts to refuse certification in narrow circumstances (for example, when class-wide relief would be ineffective or when individual remedies are feasible). Solange said the change does not remove courts’ ability to evaluate the merits; it would only bar denials based solely on the identity of the defendant as a governmental entity.

After roughly two hours of debate the Assembly recorded a final vote of Ayes 99, Noes 48; the bill passed and now heads to the governor. Members noted the governor vetoed similar language previously. During the session, the minority conference signaled it would be in the negative while the majority conference generally supported the bill.

Votes at a glance - Assembly Bill A1550 (calendar 15) — Amend CPLR to prohibit denial of class certification solely because the action involves governmental operations: Passed, 99–48. - Assembly Bill (calendar 64) — Authorize village of East Syracuse trustees to permit a village justice to be a nonresident: Passed, Ayes 143, Noes 0; takes effect immediately. - Assembly Bill 3392-A (calendar 65) — Amend Domestic Relations Law: Passed, Ayes 142, Noes 2; takes effect on the 60th day. - Assembly Bill 5295 (calendar 66) — Amend Indian Law (Montaukett recognition amendment): Passed, Ayes 144, Noes 0; takes effect immediately. - Assembly Bills 607–609 (calendar 67) — Amend General Municipal Law and the Executive Law: Passed, Ayes 144, Noes 0; effective date noted in bill text (not specified precisely in the record). - Multiple ceremonial legislative resolutions (calendar page 3)—including proclamations for Small Business Development Centers Day, Women in Agriculture Day, Doula Week, Cleaning Week, Autoimmune Awareness Month, and Missing Persons Day: Adopted by voice votes.

Why it matters If signed by the governor, the law would lower a procedural barrier to class actions that name government defendants, potentially increasing the number of class claims that proceed to certification hearings. Proponents say it expands access to collective remedies for people who lack resources to sue individually; opponents say it risks higher litigation costs for government defendants and taxpayers and interferes with judicial discretion established in decades of case law.

What’s next The bill now goes to the governor’s desk; sponsors and opponents both referenced a prior veto on similar language. If the governor signs it, courts will have a statutory bar against denying certification solely because a defendant is a government entity. If the governor vetoes it, the Assembly could attempt to override or revise the bill in a future session.