JDG Investigations, Inc. v City of New York

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

JDG Investigations, Inc. v City of New York 2018 NY Slip Op 30313(U) February 20, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 161609/2015 Judge: Lucy Billings Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. . ...... [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 1] -.. -. ..... NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 .. . ... _.-, . ,,·'!",·.- ~ ' . - INDEX NO. 161609/2015 , .'JI,-,·."< ~ RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 , ·. ! , . ,. "' "·: .. _,. . .,.. ,., , SUPREME' COURT. OF. THE STATE-., OF.'NE~J'.. 'Yo:RK· :;:.~·~c--: ;c~ · COUNTY OF NEW YORK:... IAS· PART. f6·:: :~ -.~~-'· :< ": .:· . '"' ., ·~- .... - - ..., ... - . ~~ .•.~ ..... ,• -, ..:: ' - - -. - - -: "' .,. - - ·-: : - .,. - -: : -:: - -. ...: - ..;. '-: - - -: .::_ ;- -: :- - - _·""·.:: ..,. -.x . ·~ .... "• ~· .._~ ~. I I, I -~ :' ·•.. ,· "<'.., ·JDG INVESTIGATIONS I INC: I • and··:.·.>'.·. JOHN. GIVENS, . . . .. . . . . . -~ ' ·,· - . lnaex .Nb·~ ·1Gl609/201s .. ·;: ~: °"."' ,.:, .• ·' -~ ' . - ·-; · -... . - ·against. -,- ·_,_ .. .,.. .. ~ ... .. -~ > . : ..::.. - :. .;: ' ..... - -~· ·~ .. _-_ DECISION': AND ORDER ~. CITY.OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL and JULIE MENIN, · in . her . - . ., . . capacity as Commi~sioner the·~.New.:: _::· · •· ·. York City Depart;:ment of Consumer · ·,,.··w·:".'f.:,. . " ·· . ' Affal rs· · · I of. ,.._,. ' ' . .1 ' " . ·~ ~ . •. . '. Defendants r ' ' <•"" ,, - - - - - - - - - - -· - - _. - - -' - '- - - - .- - -: - ':-· - - -·-: - "' '- ...: "' - - x • LUCY. BILLTNGS # -· .- ·J. s ..c :;:::.. I ,y,....._ .... _ ..... • ·• · .Plairitif f ~. JDG· Inve'stigations / Irtc~: >,- J1··p~ocess<se:rVing < business I ., '' ; •• • .,.. '; ' I ;~,' _,.; . / ,.,,.• :and. its o~ne:i'.: Jol:iri' Giveps_ . ch~1leµge .th.~. authority of defendant Commissiop.er of the N~w' Yor~ city Department 9f . ' . . - . ' .... : Consumer Affairs .(DCA).; to;·adj D.q.ic?,t~ 'vio'ia:t:Lohs .. ; -'., ~ of' th~ N~w. York . City Administrative Code .and the· R~le.s ~f:;th~.'~city of N.ew York - • . . • '7"" ' \" ' • . , ~' . (R. C. N. Y ..) . regulat;.ing· proce$S seryers irt «:Neyv :y6rk ci.fy. Plaintiffs als(;: diailenge .·the·:DCA Comtniss·{6'ne:r_- ')3. ·a:uthori ty<t'o impose fine.s ·and, civi~ pe~alties . ori:-Pla~rttiifs'·:~or Violations of those proV:i.sions.·.Plaintiffs claim.that the c:idjudication of ': - - ~ ' . ~ - .-- . . ~ ' ' violations and imposition of fines. and;penalties ;'violat~d ., .. . . ... . . "'' .. . - " ~ . . '."" . ' ~ --. ~ ~ excessive. punishmetit. und.er the sth "and' 14th. A.menatrien~s:. to. tJie Uni.tea States_. Constitution and ·A~ticle• I.,··§§ 5 ;and:? of the. New ~. York Cons ti tut;Lon. '· Plaintiffs- fli~thefr ~:l?iin}. that. ·D.CA published false statement~: on· its ·websi.t.e about CfDG ·Iriv~stigations. jdgivns2.192 1 2 of 15 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 2] INDEX NO. 161609/2015 .••. lo;. NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 I. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 FACTUAL AND' PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On Nov.ember 2, 20ll, DCA is.sued to JDG.In~est±gatj_ons a Notice ·of Hear~ng. on. charg~s t~at, JDG j:nvestigatioh vio~ated 6 · R.C.N.Y. § 2-234a(b) and. (c) by failing. ~o.'submit·.an .af.firmation that JDG Investigations had adopted a written Compliance Plan.The notice informed JDG I:r;vestigat~ons · t~at ·it ml.ght set ti~ these . . . . ~. . - . charges by paying a fine of $1, 000 r·ather than· attending' a hearing. On December 22, 2011 1 JOG Investigations signed a . Consent Order requiring JDG Investigations to submit (1) a - written Compliance Plan, (2) an.affirmation that JDG . . - Investigations had adopted that Complianc_e Plan, · anq .(3) monthly . .. reports regarding JDG Investig~t'ions' ·compliance . with· the. Consent Order and the laws governing proc!ess servers .. _The Consent Order , . .... . also provided that JDG Investigations' failur·e to submit' the required documents would be grounds for revocat.ion of-its process server li~ense and fines of up. to $1,0cio· fpr each violation of . the Consent Order or applicable_ laws._ ·_Tl:ie. Copsent :Order did not, however, impose· any fine ·o'n JDG ·Investigations.' On February 19, 2014,- DCA issued another Notice ..of Hearing . to JDG Investigations,_ alleging over 200 violations of ·the process server_· statutes and regulations and the 2011 Consent Order. Plaintiffs commenced a proceeding pursuant- to C.P.L~R. Article 78 challenging these violations,· but· the New York Supreme Court dismissed ·the proceeding· as"~rhoot after DCA withdrew the notice. Defendants now move to dismi~s this action based on the ·' ) jdgivns2.192 2 \ 3 of 15 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 3] INDEX NO. 161609/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 ....-. complaint's failure· to ·state a cla·i.tn. -C.P:L-.R. § ·3211(a) (7). Plaintiffs cross-move to j'oin a·deiendant arid amend their amended co_mplaint; to. convert defendants' ~notion to a motion for s-µmmary judgment, and to grant sun:mary judgment: ~n favor of plainti_ffs ori their·claims. c .p .L .R.. 3212 (b) . II. §§ 10 0 2 (bf,-' 3 'o ;z 5 ( b) ~nd.. ( c r I\ 3 211 ( c )' I ). VALIDITY OF THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS REGULATING PROCESS SERVERS . ' Plaintiffs claim that the Administrative Code .and R.C.N.Y. . :.- ~ ' provisions regulating process servers usurp the New York / Legislature's exclusive jurisdiction in violat,i_oI1: of New· York Constitution Article VI, § .3o: and Municipal Home Rule Law § 11(1) (~). In related proce~dings by plaintiffs against' defendants, this· court pre.viously determined that the Administrative Code and R.C.N.Y. provisions regulating process servers do not l,lsurp. the New York Legislature's authority. Therefore the court grants defendants_' moticm to dismiss plaintiffs' same claims here for the same reasons as the court dismissed those claims there. Giv~ns v: City of·New York, Index No. 100016/2016, slip· op. at 4-6 (Feb. 2, 2018); JDG Investigations v. City of New York, Index No. 100224/2016, slip op. at 4-6 .(Feb. 2, 201s·}. Plaintiffs also.claim that the Administrative Code and R.C.N.-Y. p~ovisions regulating_ process servers are void.because DCA and the City of New York failed to complY. New York Cit;.y . - ... . ~ Charter §,1043(d) by not reviewing the provisions and reporting specific findings to the New York. City Council. jdgivns2.192 3 4 of 15 This-court [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 4] INDEX NO. 161609/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 ; previously determined these claims as well in the two proceedings cited_ above, findi:p.g that. D<:;A. and the ,City_ did, ·prepare_ the . • ' - .< I ·"' >- •' required report an~ subm,:Lt;t:eq. it . 13, 2013. -·-"~- . Gi,;.ens slip op. at . 6-7 ...... - -_.,~~·- v.: city ,• • t.9 ' • •"' ~ >, ' • the :~i_i_y· Cq~n~cil September ····.~~- ... '\'· .. ·o·f New ..York~ Iridex_Nc<.tooo16/2016, (Feb. · 2, 2018) ; 'JDG Investigations v. City of New York, Index No. 100224/201_6, slip.op. at.6-7 .. (Feb. 2, 2018) judicata thus .bars ·all plaintiffs' clai~s Res challenging the validity of Administrative Code and R.C.N.Y. ·provisions regulating process servers. · Matter of Hunter, 4 N. Y. '.3d 260, 269 (2005); Bevilacqua v; CPR/Extell ParceLI, L.P.·, . .i.26 A~D.3d 4~9, 429 (1st Dep' t 2015); Andrade ·v, New York 'city-Police Dept.,_ 106 A.D.3d 520, 521 (1st.Dep't 2013); Pitcock v. Kasowitz, ·Benson, Torres & Friedman> LLP, 80. A. D; 3d. 453, -:154 (1st: Dep' t 2011).. Landau, P.C. v. LaRossa, Mitchell & Ross, il III .. ~.Y.~~ 8, 13 See (2008) THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK UNDERLYING DCA'S AUTHORITY .. . New York.City·Charter § 2203 sets forth the DCA Commissioner's powers to enforce violations of the Administrative Code and R.C.N.Y. provisions regulating process servers: · ( f) The commissioner,. in the performance of said functions, including those functions pursuant to subdivision e of th.is section, shall- be authorized to ho'ld public and private hearings, administer. oaths, take t_estimony, se~ve subpoenas, receive evidence, and to receive, administer, pay over and distribute monies collected in and ~s a result of actions brought for· violations Of l_aws relating to deceptive or unconscionable trade practices, or of related laws, and to promulgate, amend and modify rules and regulations necessary to carry out .the powers and duties of the department. · (h) (1) Notwithstanding any·inconsistent provision of law, the department shall be authorized,. upon due notice and jdgivns2 .192 4 5 of 15 ·r i [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 5] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 INDEX NO. 161609/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 hearing, to impose civil penalties for the violation of any laws or rules the enforcement of which is within the jurisdiction of the department pursuant to this charter, the administrative code or any other general, special or local law. The department shall have the power to render decisions and orders and to impose civil penalties for all such violations . Administrative Code § 20-104 includes parallel provisions: d. The commissioner or the commissioner's designee shall be authorized to conduct investigations, to issue subpoenas, to receive evidence, to hear complaints regarding activities for which a license is or may be required, to take depositions on due notice, to serve interrogatories, to hold public and private hearings upon due notice, to take testimony and to promulgate, amend and modify procedures and practices governing such proceedings. · e. (1) The commissioner shall be authorized, upon due notice and hearing, to suspend, revoke or cancel any license issued by him or her in accordance with the provisions of chapter two and to impose or institute fines or civil penalties for the violation of (i) any of the provisions of chapter two of this title and regulations and rules promulgated under chapter two of this title and (ii) any of the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, the enforcement of which is within the jurisdiction of the department . Except to the extent that dollar limits are otherwise specifically provided such fines or civil penalties shall not exceed five hundred dollars for each violation. Administrative Code§ 20-106(a), in Chapter 1 of Title 20, sets forth the fines to be imposed upon conviction of violations of the Administrative Code and R.C.N.Y. provisions governing licensing and regulating of process servers: Except as otherwise specifically provided in chapter two of this title, or in subdivision b of this section, any person, whether or not he or she holds a license issued under chapter two, who violates any provision of chapter two or any regulation or rule promulgated under it shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for each violation by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding fifteen days, or both; and any such person shall be subject also to a civil penalty in the sum of one hundred dollars for each violation, to be recovered in a civil action. jdgivns2.192 5 6 of 15 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 6] INDEX NO. 161609/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 Administrative Code § 20-409.l; in Chapter 2 of Title' 20, sets forth civil penalties· for violations~ of-. the.·Adm.inistrative Code's . ~-- provisions gov~rning. . . process servers: . . ~ - . .... · - . ..:~· Any pers~~ Who, after'.notice.'and h~aring ·shall .be found guilty. of· violating any provision of- this sub_chapter, . shall .be pm:nsh~d in accordance w~th the provisions Of chapter one of thi.s title and shall be subject to a penalty of not less than seven.hundred dollars :nor more than orie thousand · dollars for each violation. · · ·· " · · · I ' IV. DCA' S AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE VIOLATIONS .. OF THE STATUTES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING PROCESS SERVERS Plaintiffs claim that DCA ·lacks·. the ~authority to initiate administratiye pr9ce~dings~ ~gain'st. plaintiff~ for· tli_eir alleged ' . ·. . . . ' . ., . . .- ..... violations of the Administrative Code and R.C.N.Y because New . ' . York criminal courts maintain exclusiye jurisdiction over adjudication of these violations. New York city Charter §. 2203 (f) and (h) (1) and Adminis.trative Code § 20_..:104 (e).(l), how.ever, expressly empower.the DCA Commissioner to enforce the statutes and regulations governing process servers through hearings.and-imposition of fines or civ1i penalties for violations of those provisions. ·Nor does the New York Constitution, Penal Law, or Criminal Procedure Law limit DCA in -. ' administratively adjudicating.violations of:the·process server . . . ·• statutes and regulations. . . . N. Y. Penal Law § s·. 10 ( 3) ; Miller v. Schwartz, 72 N.Y.2d 869, 870 (1988); Rosenthal v. Hartnett, 36 N.Y.2d 269, 272 (1975). . .. Administrative· Code.§ 20-106 (a) imposes fines ·and penalties on persons convicted of violating the process server statutes or . regulations and therefore does not limit DCA's power to impose jdgivns2.192 6 7 of 15 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 7] INDEX NO. 161609/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 fines on plaintiffs, even· though th.ey have not been' convicted of any criminal _offense. 1 •E'.:xcept. Th,e introductory phrase, otherwise specifically provided in chapter two of as·. thi~_t;itle,~ also explicitly sets forth that § ·26-106 {a) does not provide the exblusive fine~ and penalties for viol~tiorts .. of t~e ~iocess server statutes and regulations and does not override .the penalties under Administrative Code § 20-409.1. Plaintiffs also claim that New York City Charter §_.ld48 requires the New York City Office of Administ:r;ative Tribunals (OATH) to cond1:1~t any adjudicatoryhea~ings regarding violations of the Administrative Code arid the :R:C.N.Y . . New York City Charter § 1048 (1) · provides. that OATH "shall conduct all . ' adjudicatory hearings for agencies _of the city unless· btherwise provided for by executive order, rule, law . Charter § 1048 (1) (emphasis ?-dded) ·. •. II ·N.Y.C. New York City Charter § · 2203(f) otherwise provides for the DCACommissioner to hold hearings and §· 2203 (h) (l)· othe_i~ise prov~des for DCA t_o "render decisions and orders and to impose civil pe;nalties fo'r· all such . . violations" of the process server. statutes and regulations.· DCA thus was authorized to adjudicate the violations alleged. against plaintiffs and was not required to refer those adjudications to OATH. In fact plaintiffs ·do.hot even allege that· defendants held any hearing.or that OATH did not 9onduct·any hearing on those alleged violations. For these reasons, the court· also grants· defendants'. motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims that DCA Iacked"authbrity or jdgivns2.192 7 8 of 15 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 8] INDEX NO. 161609/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 jurisdiction under the New York City Charter· -or Administrative Code to adjudicate violations of the process.server statutes and regulations· and thus violated plaintiffs'. rights ·to procedural and sUbstantive due"'process. ·U.S. Const. ·amend. XIV;, N.Y. Const. art. i I § 6. Consequentiy I plaintiff sf . Claim that DCA' falsely represented to plaintiffs that it maintained jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiffs' alleged violations also fails. V. DCA'S AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE FINES AND OTHER PENALTIES Plaintiffs claim further that DCA further exceeded its authority and violated the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution a~d Articl~ I, § 5, of the NSw York;~onsti~ution by charging plaintiffs with multiple violations of the same statute or regulation and threatening to impose cumulative and consecutive penalties in~.further violation of ·Penal ~i:iw Penal Law § § 80 .15. 80.15, however, does not limit DCf...'s.authority to impose multiple penalties for the same offense, as Penal Law §. 5.10(3) expressly provides that nothing in the' Penal Law bars or otherwise affects any· penalty _authorized :Qy law to be· recovered in a civil proceeding. 6 R. c :N. Y. · § 6 - 3 o, which sets forth the schedule of penalties for violations of the process.serve,r statutes a:hd regulations, also allows DCA to charge. each viola.ti on -_of a statute or regulation,or its "sUbdivisiOn,.parag:tapp., subparagraph, clause, item; or other _provision" .c:ts a separate violation. ~ection 6-30 prohibits DCA neither from charging . . violations of multiple statutory or regulatory provisions for the jdgivns2.192 8 (. 9 of 15 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 9] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 INDEX NO. 161609/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 ,·, . same conduct, nor from charging multiple.viofatiorn~- of .the same statutory or regulatory provision for .. different-conduct or.. . . "' . ~ ~ '.' _Th~refore _the court' multiple instances of the same conduct. grants defendants' motion to dismiss plai,ntiffs' claims tha:t DCA lacked authority under :the New York City Charte"r .or Administrative-Code to charge.each violation of each pr<:?vision of the Administrative· Code or R.C.N;Y. - separa~ely~_and to impose multiple punishments and thus violated plaintiffs'. rights to protection_against excessive punishment. u.s: Const. amend. VIII; N.Y .. Const art. I, § 5. See V & York, 197 A.D.2d 386, 387 (1st Dep~t 1993); Meyers Bros. Parking . A Towing v. City bf New sys. v. Sherman, 87 A.D.2d 562, 563 (1st Dept 19?2), aff'cl, 57 N.Y.2d 653 (1982). Plaintiffs a,gain point to Administrative.Code_§ 20-106(a) as allowing DCA to impose a fine or penalty for violations of-the I process server statutes and regulations only after a conviction ' ' - for a criminal ~ffense and liciiti~g all civil_~enalties to $100 per violation. Plaintiffs misint;erpret the statute's plain terms, which provide that "any person who" violates any provision of chapter two [of Title 20] or any regulation or rule promulgated under it shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for each violation . • I and any such person shall be.subject also to a civil_ penalty in the sum of- one hundr_ed dollars each violation." . N. Y. C. Admin. ·Code § 20-106 (a) added) . ~or (emphasis - Thus Administr~tive Code·§ 20.--:106 (a}· appl-ies to ' adjudications and_ convictions of violations of provisions in the jdgivns2.192 9 10 of 15 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 10] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 INDEX NO. 161609/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 Administrative Code and R.C.N.Y., not f?.ecessarily adjudications ., and convictions of a criminal offense. As explained.above, neither do Administrative Code . . . ""' ' ~ 20- § ~ 106(a)'s qualifying terms, "Except as_?therwise·specifically· .. , provided in chapter two of th~s title, •i. limit the penalties DCA - . may impose for violations . of the provisions goverriing,'process .. . . ' ' As "otherwise specifically provided'in•chap~er two of servers. this title,·" Administrative Code § 20-4.09 .1 authoriz_es DCA. to impose a $700 to $1,000 fine for each violation of the process server statutes. Consequently, DCA was authorized to impose.fines-on plaintiffs without conviction of·a crimi"nal offense,_ but only upon conviction of their violation. of the and regulations. proc~ss -. server statutes Upon conviction oftheirviolation of _the process server statutes I . DCA was authorized :to impose.- an initial fine of up to.$500, a civil pena}ty of $iOO, and.an additional· fine, albeit hot a civil·~enalty, 6f $i6o to $1,000 per violation. Moreover, plaintiffs expressly a,greed t,o th~ Consent Order, which independently authorized DCA's imposition- of fines of up to ·$1, 000 for· each violation of_ the Cons·ent Order, or 6 R.C.N.Y. § 2-234a(b) or· (c). For these reasons, the court grants defendahts' _motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims that DCA exceeded its au.thori ty to impose fines and penalties and fines.and thus violated plaintiffs' rights to procedural and substantive due process. U.S. Const. amend. XIV; N.Y. Const. art.·r, jdgivns2.192 10 11 of 15 J 6. The.court also [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 11] . .. ..••~ ·. ~· - INDEX NO. 161609/2015 ~>t. NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 grants defendants' motion to dismiss .plaintiffs' claims that defendants violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242, as those f·ederal criminal statutes do.not provide.a private right of action. Storm-Eggink v ." Gottfried, 409 Fed·: App:x:. 426, · 427 (2d Cir. 2011); Hill· v. Didio, 191 Fed. Appx.· 13, 14 (2d Cir. 2006); Keady v. Nike, Inc., 23 Fed. Appx. 2.9, 31 (2d Cir. 2001), Finally, insofar as plaintiffs claim that the maximum fine , DCA may impose is excessive and violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution or 1\rt~i?l.~ I~ 5; § of· :the New York Constitution, plaintiffs fail to plead· facts ·.to support such a claim. Neither the amended compla~nt nor the proposed second amended complaint alleges· v:hat fines DCA imposed·for what offenses, that any such fi:µes were exc.essive, or even that DCA actually fined plaintiffs, as the pleadings allege only that DCA threatened to or sought to impose.fines··of $1,000 . . . VI. PLAINTIFFS' RIGHT TO SERVE·PROCESS WITHOUT A PROCESS SERVER LICENSE Plaintiffs claim that bcA'violated the Administrative Code and R.C.N.Y. when DCA notified plaintiffs that they were not permitted to serve process without a_ license. while thei:i::- license applications were pending and threatened to penalize plaintiffs if they' did serve process without a license.· · Administratiye Code § 20-403(a) requires process servers and process serving businesses to· hold a process server license c without .any . " ,. ~ exceptions for individuals or.businesses with periding .. applications. ' . No other statute or reg.ulation :authorizes· plaintiffs to serve process without. a license while their license jdgivns2.192· 11 12 of 15 [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 12] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 INDEX NO. 161609/2015 ,., ·'.\. RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 applications were pending; Administrative Code §·20-1os(d) 'stays the,enforcement of the + >. • . • "' • ' ~ ' • •. • • . .. . ~ ' ,· "" DCA Commissio:r.i_er'·s,: o~derf3 while_: ~n ...~ppi.l.c::ant'.~ rE?pewej.l · ... application is pending, blit d9.e~ · not .. ailov.T '..~¢rvi_ce _of-~'proc;E:ss ~ without a license. ... . .~ • "i'} ...... ,,~···· ~ .•: ' .. ,,.· ,• . 'Plaihtiff$"were'· rtot permi t'te;d to ilerve: process pend.in~. the. de.termiriation. of. t:heJ.r · 11cense · appl~cations because'their·licenses,had e,xpired, not because'of 'any'DCA order, so that Admini.strativ~ Code § ·20~1'05 (d) wi3.~' tnapplicable_. . . VII. . PLAINTIFFS' DEFAMATION CLAIM. . Plaintiff~- claim ,that 'DCA' s. Notice· of .. \ .... ~~aring 'dated Nove~er 2, 2011, .. and the parties' ·corisentorder .ciat~d· ~ecember ;22,· 2011, included false st_atemen):s ·that. corist_ituie defamation per ·s~. Statements dur~ng.a,j~dicial or quasi-judicial proceeding; • ' A however, 'are absolutely privileged- .as long as· they are, material . ' ~ and pe:r_:tinent to _the subject. of. the'. proceedings_. , . Rosenberg I J . ·V. . MetLife, Inc.·, 8 N.Y.3d 35·9~, 365 (20.07)';{·Park.Knoll Assoc. v. Schmidt, 59 N.Y.2d 205, 209-10.:(1983); Stega ...J.· New York Downtown Hosp., 148 A. D. 3d 21, 25. (Ist :Dep' t 2017) ; .cJ..c:::coni .v ..· McGinn, smith &·co., Irie., .27 A.D,.3d 59; 6.1 ·(1st;: :Dep't . \ ~oc»5J .. The judicial and qu~s.i-judicial pr:ivileg~ ericomp~sses. statements · 2 during the preliminary _oi investiga:tive; stageE) :"?f,. a: quasi-, judicia) administrative ·proc.eeding interest is. at~ I . especially 'wher'e ~-public '• . ·, stake.·' Rosenberg-v> MetLife,'.Inc:-;'8 N.Y:3d at 365; Stega v .. New York Downtown Hosp., 148 A.~D.3d'at..29-:27; Cicconiv. McGinn, Smith·& co.:··Inc.', .27 A.D.3dat.6+ . .. This privilege protects.. DCA' s~.. ~.tatement~ ;in .. iti';;~. Notice of jdgivns2.192 12 . 13 of 15 -~ " [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 13] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 INDEX NO. 161609/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 Hearing to :JDG :tnvestigat.i.ons ana the. statements in the Consent 9rder, even if considered DCA's statements and not the parties; jointly endorsed statements.- The statements were, yart_of .the preliminary_ stages, of- an administrative proceeding 'concerning 'the operation of.aprocess serving business t:hatperforms a.service . critical to members of. the'public who>are parties and .. witnesses in judicial· proceedings. Rosenberg v. MetLife, Inc.·, 8 N. Y. 3d at 365; Stega v. New York Downtown Hosp~,148 A~D.3d at 26.-:27; Cicconi v.. ·McGinn, Smith VIII. & ·Co., Inc., 27: A. D. 3d at 61. PLAINTIFFS' CROSS-MOTION TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT Plaintiffsseek to.join the DCA attorney who signed the 2011 Notice of Hearing I the Consent or'der I and the 2014 .. Notice_ of Hearing and to amend their complaint with allegations regarding DCA' s history Of administratively prosecuting viola_tions of the process server regulations. C.P.L.R. §§ 1002(b), 3025(b). As this proposed joinder of a defendant arid proposed amendments would not defeat defendants' motion to dismiss any of the amended complaint's claims, the court de:nies plaintiffs' c~oss-motion as futile. Aleksandrova v. City of New York, 151 A.D.3d 427, 428 (1st Dep't 2017); Desarrolladora Farallon S. de R.L. de C.V. v. Mexvalo, s. de R.L. 'de C.V., 146 A.D.3d 442; 442 -(1st Dep't_ 2017); South Bronx Unite!. v. New York City Indus ..-Dev. Aqency, 138 A:D.3d 462,- 462 IX. (1st Dep't 2016) ... CONCLUSION For all the reasons explained above, the. court grants defendants' motion to dismiss the al!!ended jdgivns2.192 13 14 of 15 c~mplaint in it's [*FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/21/2018 10:20 AM 14] NYSCEF DOC. NO. 49 INDEX NO. 161609/2015 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/21/2018 ... pl~intiff~' entirety and denies cross-motion to join a defendant, to amend the amended complaint, and_ for summary_ judgment. C.P.L.R. §§_ 3212(b). 1002 (b) I 3025 (b) and (C) I ~3211 (a) (7) and (c) I This decision constitutes the court's order and judgment of dismissal. DATED: February 20, 2018 LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C . . LUCY BiLUMGS. J.s.c. I I. jdgivns2.192 14 15 of 15

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.