New York Law Review

Tag: Cohn v. Borchard Affiliations

  • Cohn v. Borchard Affiliations, 25 N.Y.2d 237 (1969): Upholding Legislative Authority Over Court Procedure

    Cohn v. Borchard Affiliations, 25 N.Y.2d 237 (1969)

    The Legislature possesses broad authority to enact statutes regulating practice and procedure in the courts, including limitations on a court’s power to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute.

    Summary

    This case addresses the constitutionality of CPLR 3216, which requires a defendant to serve a 45-day demand on the plaintiff to file a note of issue before moving to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. The Court of Appeals held that CPLR 3216 is constitutional, finding that the Legislature has the power to regulate practice and procedure in the courts. The court reasoned that the power to dismiss for failure to prosecute was initially a legislative creation, not an inherent judicial power, and the statute doesn’t unconstitutionally infringe upon judicial prerogatives.

    Facts

    In Cohn, the plaintiffs sued for personal injuries sustained in 1961, commencing the action in 1964. After the defendant answered and demanded a bill of particulars, no action was taken until 1967, when the defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute. In Blankenship, the plaintiff alleged breach of contract in a suit commenced in 1960. After some initial activity, the plaintiff took no action for over four years, prompting the defendant to move to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

    Procedural History

    In Cohn, the lower court denied the motion to dismiss, citing the defendant’s failure to serve the 45-day demand required by the newly enacted CPLR 3216. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the statute unconstitutional and directing dismissal. In Blankenship, the lower court granted the motion to dismiss, citing the excessive delay, and the Appellate Division affirmed without opinion, following its Cohn decision. Both cases were appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether CPLR 3216, which requires a defendant to serve a 45-day demand on the plaintiff to file a note of issue before moving to dismiss for failure to prosecute, is an unconstitutional infringement on the court’s inherent power to control its calendar.

    Holding

    No, because the Legislature has broad authority to enact statutes regulating practice and procedure in the courts, including limitations on a court’s power to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the power to dismiss actions for undue delay was a legislative creation, not an inherent judicial power. The court traced the history of dismissal for failure to prosecute, noting that it originated in colonial legislation. The Court cited Section 30 of Article VI of the New York Constitution, explicitly granting the Legislature broad power to formulate rules of procedure, limited only by the power it had “heretofore exercised.” While acknowledging that some matters are beyond legislative reach due to the nature of governmental structure, the Court found the authority to regulate practice and procedure lies principally with the Legislature.

    The Court distinguished the prior case of Riglander v. Star Co., where a statute mandating trial dates was deemed unconstitutional. Unlike the statute in Riglander, which interfered with the court’s discretion over its calendar, CPLR 3216 only provides a procedural opportunity to correct a default. As the Court noted, “The courts are not the puppets of the Legislature…And while the Legislature has the power to alter and regulate the proceedings in law and equity, it can only exercise such power in that respect as it has heretofore exercised; and it has never before attempted to deprive the courts of that judicial discretion which they have been always accustomed to exercise.”

    The Court emphasized the practical considerations, cautioning that invalidating CPLR 3216 would jeopardize numerous other provisions of the CPLR and undermine the concept of a statutory code of judicial procedure. The Court concluded by stating that it must accord to the Legislature a considerable degree of controlling effect over the powers of the court and that a section’s inconsistency with their own vision of efficient judicial administration is insufficient basis for deeming it unconstitutional.

  • Cohn v. Borchard Affiliations, 25 N.Y.2d 237 (1969): Discretion to Dismiss for General Delay Before Note of Issue Filing

    Cohn v. Borchard Affiliations, 25 N.Y.2d 237 (1969)

    A court retains the discretion to dismiss an action for general delay in prosecution, even before a note of issue is filed, without requiring the defendant to serve a 45-day demand, as long as the motion isn’t solely based on the failure to file a note of issue.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a court could dismiss a case for general delay before a note of issue was filed, without the defendant first issuing a 45-day demand to the plaintiff to file one. The court held that CPLR 3216’s 45-day demand requirement only applies when the motion to dismiss is solely based on the failure to file a note of issue. The court reasoned that the statute does not restrict the inherent power of the courts to dismiss actions for overall neglect. The court affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the importance of diligent prosecution of actions.

    Facts

    The plaintiff alleged injuries in October 1960 and filed suit against the defendant in June 1962. The defendant requested a physical examination in March 1963, which the plaintiff failed to attend. No further action was taken by the plaintiff. In February 1965, the defendant moved to dismiss the case based on general delay.

    Procedural History

    The Special Term denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed the Special Term’s order and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a court has the power to dismiss an action for general delay before the filing of a note of issue, if the defendant has not complied with the 45-day demand requirement of CPLR 3216.

    Holding

    No, because CPLR 3216’s 45-day demand requirement only applies when the motion to dismiss is based solely on the failure to file a note of issue, and does not restrict the court’s power to dismiss for general delay.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that the second paragraph of CPLR 3216, which outlines the 45-day demand requirement, only applies when the motion to dismiss is based on the failure of the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue. The court emphasized that in this case, the defendant’s motion was based on general delay, not solely on the failure to file a note of issue. The court also noted the Governor’s veto of a proposed amendment to CPLR 3216, which would have imposed an unnecessary limitation on the discretion of the courts in dealing with neglected actions. The court stated, “We agree that the courts, in dealing with neglected actions, should not be unduly hampered.”

    The court acknowledged the concern that defendants might circumvent the 45-day demand requirement by always characterizing their motions as being for “general delay.” However, the court stated that it is not bound by the defendant’s characterization of the motion. A court can examine all the factors and determine whether there has been general delay or whether the only delay is a slight delay in filing the note of issue. The court emphasized the importance of diligent prosecution of actions, stating that “a rule which would permit plaintiffs’ attorneys to delay inordinately prior to the filing of a note of issue without risk of dismissal for failure to prosecute would hardly encourage their diligent prosecution of actions.”

    The court clarified its previous holdings in Salama v. Cohen and Tomich v. Cohen, stating that insofar as those cases implied that the 45-day demand requirement of 3216 applies to cases where there has been general delay prior to the filing of a note of issue, they should not be followed. The court concluded that CPLR 3216 leaves untouched the general power of the courts to dismiss actions in their discretion for general delay, but mandates the 45-day demand requirement where the only basis for the motion is a delay in the filing of a note of issue not amounting to general delay. The court observed that the facts of the case indicated a general delay on the part of the plaintiff.