Fernandez v. City of New York
148 A.D.3d 995
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jose Fernandez was injured on June 14, 2012 at the Brooklyn Navy Yard while working on a removed gate valve in a shipyard workshop.
- He sought leave to serve a late notice of claim on the City; the Supreme Court denied that petition on June 17, 2013, and this Court later affirmed that denial.
- Plaintiff then sued the City alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6).
- The City moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) for failure to serve a timely notice of claim as required by General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i.
- Plaintiff opposed and cross-moved to amend to add a maritime-tort claim and alleged preemption by LHWCA provisions (33 U.S.C. § 933(a) and 46 U.S.C. § 30106) because he received LHWCA benefits.
- Supreme Court granted the City’s dismissal motion and denied leave to amend; the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding the notice-of-claim requirement was not displaced and the proposed federal maritime claim was patently without merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GML §§ 50-e and 50-i notice-of-claim requirement is preempted by LHWCA § 933(a) or 46 U.S.C. § 30106 | Fernandez: federal maritime statutes allow third‑party maritime or LHWCA-based claims and thus preempt state notice rules | City: state notice-of-claim statute is a condition precedent that survives; federal statutes do not displace it | Held: State notice requirement applies; federal statutes do not alter GML timing conditions |
| Whether plaintiff’s status as an LHWCA benefits recipient converts state-law Labor Law claims into federal maritime torts | Fernandez: receipt of LHWCA benefits supports maritime tort characterization and tolling/extension of claim periods | City: LHWCA benefits do not transform state-law claims or negate municipal notice rules | Held: LHWCA status does not convert Labor Law claims into maritime torts or evade notice requirements |
| Whether proposed amended complaint adding a federal maritime tort is viable | Fernandez: proposed maritime claim asserted federal jurisdiction and different timing | City: proposed federal claim lacks jurisdictional basis given accident location | Held: Proposed maritime tort claim patently devoid of merit (location not subject to maritime jurisdiction) |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted despite late notice | Fernandez: amendment would cure jurisdictional/timing issues by asserting federal maritime causes | City: amendment would be futile; dismissal appropriate | Held: Leave to amend denied as futile; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp. v. Garris, 532 U.S. 811 (section 933 preserves third‑party claims)
- McLaurin v. Noble Drilling (US) Inc., 529 F.3d 285 (section 933 preserves state-law third‑party remedies; does not create causes of action)
- Victory Carriers, Inc. v. Law, 404 U.S. 202 (maritime jurisdiction limits)
- Scott v. Trump Indiana, Inc., 337 F.3d 939 (jurisdictional limits on maritime torts)
- Fontenot v. Dual Drilling Co., 179 F.3d 969 (state notice rules govern third‑party actions founded on state law)
- Garvin v. Alumax of South Carolina, Inc., 787 F.2d 910 (third‑party actions founded on state law are governed by state law)
- Singh v. City of New York, 88 A.D.3d 864 (affirming dismissal for failure to serve timely notice)
- Morton v. Brookhaven Mem. Hosp., 32 A.D.3d 381 (amendment futile where condition precedent unsatisfied)