Clement v. Durban
147 A.D.3d 39
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff (Charmaine Clement) sued for personal injuries in Kings County after being struck by an NYPD vehicle; she later moved to Georgia.
- Defendants moved under CPLR 8501(a) and 8503 to require plaintiff, a nonresident, to post $500 security for costs; Supreme Court granted the motion.
- Plaintiff argued the statutes, as applied to natural persons, violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. IV, §2).
- The question presented is whether requiring nonresident plaintiffs to post security for costs deprives them of reasonable and adequate access to New York courts.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the statutes do not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause and are a reasonable means to deter frivolous suits and secure enforceability of cost judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CPLR 8501(a) and 8503 violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause by burdening nonresidents' access to courts | Statutes deny nonresidents fundamental right to equal access to courts; unconstitutional as applied | Requirement is reasonable and adequate: modest bond deters frivolous suits and ensures enforceability of costs | Statutes are constitutional as applied; $500 security does not deny reasonable and adequate access | |
| Whether Lunding two-part test must be applied here (substantial reason and substantial relationship) | Statutes fail Lunding test and are discriminatory | Even under Lunding, there is a substantial reason (nonresidents lack attachable NY assets) and a substantial relationship to deterrence/enforcement | Court notes right of access has lesser showing (reasonable and adequate); statutes also satisfy Lunding if applied | |
| Whether statutes impose an unconstitutional burden analogous to discriminatory taxation in Ward v. Maryland | Statutes are analogous to Ward because they impose higher costs on nonresidents | Not analogous; statutes require security, not higher taxes or excises, and funds are returnable if plaintiff prevails | Ward inapposite; requirement is bond-like and not a discriminatory tax | |
| Whether plaintiff’s asserted Equal Protection and Due Process claims are reviewable on appeal | Plaintiff raises federal constitutional claims | Defendants argue those claims were not raised below | Court treats Equal Protection and Due Process claims as forfeited for appeal | Claims not considered because raised for first time on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Canadian Northern R. Co. v. Eggen, 252 U.S. 553 (U.S. 1920) (access to courts satisfied if nonresident is given terms that are reasonable and adequate)
- McBurney v. Young, 133 S. Ct. 1709 (U.S. 2013) (Privileges and Immunities Clause does not force states to eliminate all litigation advantages for residents)
- Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, 522 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1998) (when a law distinguishes residents and nonresidents, state must show substantial reason and substantial relationship)
- Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’n of Mont., 436 U.S. 371 (U.S. 1978) (Privileges and Immunities protects only fundamental privileges; some resident/nonresident distinctions permissible)
- Ward v. Maryland, 79 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1870) (invalidated discriminatory license fee/tax on nonresident traders)
- Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239 (U.S. 1898) (noting bond-for-costs requirement as generally permissible)
- Kentucky Finance Corp. v. Paramount Auto Exchange Corp., 262 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1923) (corporations must conform to forum rules, including reasonable rules on costs/security)