Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 67 N.Y.2d 967 (1986)
r
r
A prior nonfinal order determining the availability of a class action is not reviewable on appeal from a subsequent nonfinal order concerning class action certification, and the latter order will only be reviewed for abuse of discretion.
r
r
Summary
r
Super Glue Corp. sought to maintain a class action against Avis for alleged violations of General Business Law § 349. Avis initially challenged the maintainability of a class action. The trial court rejected Avis’s argument, but later denied class certification based on the cost of identifying class members. The Appellate Division reversed, permitting the class action. The Court of Appeals held that because a prior order determined that a class action was permissible, the only issue on appeal was whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion in allowing the class action to proceed. Finding no abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
r
r
Facts
r
Super Glue Corp. commenced an action against Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., alleging violations of General Business Law § 349. Super Glue Corp. sought to prosecute the action as a class action on behalf of consumers similarly affected by Avis’s practices.
r
r
Procedural History
r
1. Avis moved to dismiss the class action claims, arguing that a class action was not maintainable under General Business Law § 349.r
2. The trial court denied Avis’s motion and Super Glue’s cross-motion for class certification, but rejected Avis’s legal argument against class action maintainability.r
3. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s order without opinion.r
4. Super Glue renewed its motion for class certification. The trial court denied the motion, citing the high cost of identifying and notifying class members.r
5. The Appellate Division reversed, granting class certification.r
6. The Appellate Division granted Avis leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, certifying the question of whether the Appellate Division’s order was properly made.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion in permitting the action to proceed as a class action.
r
r
Holding
r
No, because the Appellate Division weighed all relevant factors and reasonably concluded that a class action was superior for adjudicating the controversy.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court of Appeals held that the prior Appellate Division order, which implicitly determined that a class action was legally permissible under General Business Law § 349, was not reviewable on this appeal. CPLR 5501(a)(1) limits review to final orders unless a prior non-final order necessarily affects the final order and was not previously reviewed. Because the initial order was non-final and decided the legal permissibility of the class action, it was not subject to review on the appeal of the subsequent non-final order regarding class certification. Thus, the only question before the Court was whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion in granting class certification, assessing factors such as those outlined in CPLR 901 and 902.r
r
The Court found no abuse of discretion, noting that the Appellate Division considered all relevant factors and concluded that a class action was the superior method for adjudicating the dispute. The Court deferred to the Appellate Division’s discretionary determination. The court stated, “We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion here. The Appellate Division weighed all of the relevant factors (CPLR 901, 902) and, in contrast to the trial court, found that prosecution of the claims in class action form was ‘superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy’ (CPLR 901 [a] [5]). We see no reason to disturb that inherently discretionary determination.”