Paone v Wynantskill Detention Ctr.

[*1] Paone v Wynantskill Detention Ctr. 2009 NY Slip Op 52293(U) [25 Misc 3d 1225(A)] Decided on October 21, 2009 Supreme Court, Rensselaer County Zwack, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on October 21, 2009
Supreme Court, Rensselaer County

Christine A. Paone, Plaintiff,

against

Wynantskill Detention Center, Rensselaer County, Jason Hickling, and Steven Glenn, Defendants.



215503



Caplan & Caplan, P.C.

Attorneys For Plaintiff

Kelly M. Curro, Esq., of counsel

1707 Central Avenue

Albany, New York 12205

Boeggeman, George & Corde, P.C.

Attorneys For Defendants

Cynthia Dolan, Esq., of counsel

1 Water Street

Suite 425

White Plains, New York 10601

Henry F. Zwack, J.

In this employment discrimination case, defendants move to amend their answer to add the affirmative defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

Plaintiff's complaint sets forth claims alleging sexual harassment and hostile work environment relating to her employment as a house parent at Wynantskill Detention Center. The complaint sets forth claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and Executive Law and also a claim under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that defendant Jason Hickling yelled obscenities and made obscene remarks in the presence of plaintiff and others and at times directed the remarks at plaintiff, and criticized and belittled plaintiff.

A Workers' Compensation Board determination dated January 18, 2006 denied plaintiff benefits for her claimed post-traumatic stress disorder which she argued was caused by defendant Hickling's sexual harassment and creation of a hostile work environment. Both plaintiff and defendant Hickling testified at the Worker's Compensation hearing, in addition to ten other witnesses. The decision notes that "[t]he accuracy of the facts as alleged by the claimant is called into question by the testimony of the other witnesses. Taken as a whole, the credible testimony does not support her claim that she was subject to stress greater than that which occurs in the normal work environment."

Plaintiff appealed that determination. A detailed administrative decision dated November 6, 2006 denied plaintiff's appeal and affirmed the January 18, 2006 decision.

Defendants now move to amend their answer and for summary judgment or dismissal of the complaint on the basis that plaintiff's state claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and based upon the Court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claim. Defendants argue that plaintiffs state law claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel based upon the denial of plaintiff's Workers' Compensation claim upon the same facts as those asserted in the complaint in the present proceeding. Defendants then argue that if the state law claims are dismissed, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining federal claim.

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that defendants were aware of the Workers' Compensation proceeding for over 2 years and should have made a motion to amend their answer much sooner. Plaintiff argues that she is prejudiced because she has proceeded with this action assuming that defendants chose not to assert defenses relating to the workers compensation proceeding. Plaintiff notes that a note of issue has already been filed in this proceeding. Plaintiff also argues that the Workers' Compensation Board denial is not dispositive of plaintiff's claims in the present proceeding. Plaintiff contends that the Workers' Compensation Board determination that she did not suffer a [*2]compensable injury does not mean that plaintiff cannot meet the criteria for establishing sexual harassment and hostile work environment in the present proceeding.

In reply, defendants argue that they were unsure of the scope of plaintiff's claims until the close of discovery. Defendants also note that they are still waiting for full transcripts of the Worker's Compensation hearing.

First, while the Court notes that it does appear that defendants could have moved more promptly in seeking to amend the affirmative defenses in their answer, the Court also notes that delay alone is not a sufficient basis for denying amendment of a pleading (Edenwald Contracting Co., Inc. v City of New York, 60 NY2d 957 [1983]; Morris v Crawford, 281 AD2d 805 [3d Dept 2001]; Architectural Builders Inc. v Pollard, 267 AD2d 704 [3d Dept 1999]). The Court notes defendant's explanation that they needed to wait until the close of discovery to determine if plaintiff's claims in the present proceeding and those in the worker's compensation proceeding were identical. The Court also notes that plaintiff's deposition was held in January of this year and the present motion was filed in July. The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to set forth the significant prejudice if an amendment is permitted (see id.). Plaintiff argues that she believed defendants were not going to seek to amend their answer based upon the passage of time and relied upon this. However, this falls short of significant prejudice and there is no claim that plaintiff would have or could have litigated the case differently if the answer had been amended sooner.

Concerning the merits of the proposed amendments, the Court notes plaintiff's argument in opposition to the present motion that the standard for the Workers' Compensation Board to find a compensable claim is different than the claims set forth in the present proceeding. However, the Court concurs with defendants that the factual claims that plaintiff sets forth in support of the claims in this proceeding and at the Workers' Compensation proceeding are identical. The Worker's Compensation Board considered the testimony of 12 witnesses before deciding that plaintiff's claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment were not sufficiently supported by credible evidence to sustain a finding that her alleged post-traumatic stress disorder was compensable under Workers' Compensation Law. While the Board was considering the standard for a compensable injury under the Worker's Compensation Law, which may differ from the elements of the claims in the present proceeding, the Court notes that the factual arguments set forth by plaintiff in support of the claims in both proceedings are identical. The decisions in plaintiff's Workers' Compensation proceeding make clear that the administrative law judge found plaintiff's factual arguments and claims to lack credibility. These same claims are set forth in the present proceeding in support of plaintiff's causes of action. The Court has reviewed the submissions on the present motion in coming to this conclusion, including plaintiff's complaint and deposition testimony. The Court also notes that plaintiff's deposition testimony affirms that the full extent of plaintiff's claims are set out in her interrogatory response, which was separately [*3]filed with the Court and also reconfirms that plaintiff's factual claims in the present proceeding in support of her claims are identical to those factual claims set forth in the Workers' Compensation proceeding. The Court therefore finds merit to defendants' proposed affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel (see Ryan v New York Telephone Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500 [1984] ["collateral estoppel allows the determination of an issue of fact or law raised in a subsequent action by reference to a previous judgment on a different cause of action in which the same issue was necessarily raised and decided.'"]).

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that defendant's motion to amend their answer is properly granted to add the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

Additionally, defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is also granted in part based upon the foregoing. The Court finds that plaintiffs state law claims are barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, as noted above (Jason B. v Novello, 12 NY3d 107 [2009]; Josey v Goord, 9 NY3d 386 [2007]; Ryan, supra).

However, regarding plaintiff's remaining federal claim, the Court does not concur with defendants that the claim is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue in support of their motion that: "[t]he dismissal of the plaintiff's State Law claims would result in the plaintiff's remaining claim being a Title VII cause of action for which this Court, based upon the federal claim standing alone, would not have subject matter jurisdiction warranting dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint." Plaintiff did not oppose this statement in her opposition papers. However, Title VII jurisdiction is not exclusive to federal courts (Yellow Freight System, Inc. v Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820 [1990]). Therefore, the Court does not find that defendants' proposed affirmative defense regarding lack of subject matter jurisdiction has merit or that plaintiff's federal claim is properly dismissed on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

However, in reviewing plaintiff's complaint, the Court finds that the same factual claims are submitted in support of all of plaintiff's claims. It has been noted that the same legal standard applies to claims under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law (Pfeiffer v Lewis Co., 308 FSupp2d 88, 102 n12 [NDNY 2004]; see also Rivera v Apple Indus. Corp., 148 FSupp2d 202 [EDNY 2001]; Walia v Vivek Purmasir & Assoc., Inc., 160 FSupp2d 380 [EDNY 2000]). The findings set forth in the Workers' Compensation proceeding, notably finding that plaintiff was not "subject to stress greater than that which occurs in the normal work environment," compels the dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims (see id.). The crux of each claim in this proceeding is plaintiff's allegation that defendant Jason Hickling created a hostile and abusive work environment for plaintiff. Plaintiff's factual allegations were not found credible in the Workers' Compensation proceeding, as set forth above, and this compels the dismissal of all of plaintiff's claims on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. [*4]

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED, that Defendants' motion is granted, except to the extent of permitting defendants to amend their answer to include the affirmative defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which is denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that plaintiff's complaint is dismissed.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. This Decision and Order is returned to the attorneys for the defendants. All other papers are delivered to the Supreme Court Clerk for transmission to the County Clerk. The signing of this Decision and Order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions of this rule with regard to filing, entry and Notice of Entry.

Dated:October, 2009

Troy, New York

________________________________________

Henry F. Zwack

Acting Supreme Court Justice