SENATE

ASSEMBLY

Wrongful Death ​Lawsuit Expansion

S. 8485A

A. 9232B

S. 8485A, as amended, is similar to previous bills that Gov. ​Kathy Hochul (D) has vetoed. Specifically, S. 8485 would ​increase the statute of limitations from two to three years. The ​bill would also expand damages available in wrongful death ​suits by:

• Eliminating the statute’s requirement that damages ​provide compensation for pecuniary injuries;
• Authorizing damages for the grief or anguish of family ​members caused by the decedent's death (which are not ​permitted in most states or permitted but capped);
• Authorizing damages for “loss of nurture, guidance, ​counsel, advice, training, companionship and education” ​resulting from the decedent's death; and,
• Authorizing damages for “other pecuniary injuries, ​including loss of services, support, assistance, and loss or ​diminishment of inheritance” resulting from the ​decedent's death (these damages may already be ​recoverable).

The changes to this legislation from the bill that Gov. Hochul ​vetoed in December 2023 (S. 6636) and as re-introduced in ​February 2024 are: the bill no longer authorizes damages for ​“loss of love, society, protection, comfort, and consortium” ​resulting from the decedent's death, but does authorize ​damages for loss of companionship; the bill no longer ​significantly expands who is eligible to recover damages in ​wrongful death actions; the bill applies retroactively to all ​causes of action that accrued on or after January 1, 2021 rather ​than July 1, 2018.

However, New York would be an outlier in its approach to ​wrongful death liability. Most states that allow subjective ​damages for emotional harm impose limits, especially in the ​medical malpractice context.

Consumer and ​Small Business ​Protection Act

S. 795A and A. 7138

These bills aim to expand the consumer protection laws in ​New York, particularly concerning deceptive acts and ​practices. Although it claims to support small businesses, the ​bill is overly broad and would result in a significant increase ​in meritless lawsuits against businesses of all sizes. Key ​points of concern include:

Expansion of Definitions

The bill extends the definition of prohibited acts to include ​"unfair" and "abusive" practices, which are considered ​subjective and open to broad interpretation.

Third-Party Standing

It grants third parties and attorney-led nonprofit ​organizations the statutory right to initiate class action ​lawsuits for actual, statutory, and punitive damages.

Statutory Damages and Attorneys Fees

The bill raises statutory damages from $50 to $1,000 per ​violation and mandates the award of attorney’s fees and ​costs to a prevailing plaintiff. This will incentivize speculative ​lawsuits and low or no injury claims. In the class action ​context, a radical expansion of minimum damages and ​attorneys fees will create catastrophic liability.

Potential for Frivolous Lawsuits

The combination of these provisions is expected to lead to a ​surge in frivolous litigation, driven by profit hungry trial ​lawyers.

Critics argue that while consumer protection is important, ​the bill's broad nature will likely harm New York residents by ​encouraging excessive litigation. This could result in higher ​court costs, increased fees, and punitive damages, ​ultimately leading to higher prices for goods and services ​and fewer jobs.

The burden on small businesses, especially those struggling ​post-pandemic, would be particularly severe, as they may ​not be able to absorb the costs of defending against ​frivolous lawsuits.

21st Century ​Antitrust Act

S.6748-B and A.10323

Key Concerns:

1. Broad and Vague Provisions:
   
• The bill introduces penalties for "abuse of a dominant ​position" in business, terms which are undefined and ​subjective.
  
• Such vagueness could penalize pro-competitive ​behavior that benefits consumers.
  
2. Increased Litigation:
   
• Authorizes private class action suits for damages, ​significantly raising litigation costs for businesses.
  
• Provisions could result in numerous lawsuits based ​on vague standards, leading to excessive legal ​burdens on businesses.
  
3. Comparison to Current Law:
   
• Existing antitrust laws, like the Donnelly Act, closely ​follow the federal Sherman Act and focus on ​consumer protection against anti-competitive ​conduct.
  
• The proposed bill deviates from this focus, ​potentially harming consumers by protecting ​competitors over market competition.
  

Specific Issues Highlighted:

• Unclear Definitions: The bill fails to define what ​constitutes a "dominant position" or "abuse," creating ​legal uncertainty.
  
• Broad Application: Applies to any business in New York, ​including small local businesses, not just large ​corporations.
  
• Risk of Penalizing Pro-Competitive Conduct: Potentially ​outlaws beneficial business practices, like efficient ​distribution or product innovation, if they harm ​competitors.
  
• Merger & Acquisition Filing Requirement:
  
• Imposes unprecedented notification requirements ​for transactions to the New York Attorney General, ​creating heavy administrative burdens.
  
• Violates best practices and deviates from ​international and national norms.
  

Expert Criticism:

• The California Law Revision Commission rejected similar ​legislation, citing excessive vagueness and potential harm ​to consumers.
  
• The proposed bill is seen as protecting businesses at the ​expense of consumers, contrary to the purpose of ​antitrust laws.
  

Broader Implications:

• Shifts focus from consumer welfare to protecting ​competitors, undermining healthy market competition.
  
• Grants excessive enforcement powers to private parties ​and class action attorneys, leading to potential abuse and ​frivolous litigation.
  
• Risks making New York an outlier in antitrust ​enforcement, damaging its economic competitiveness ​and business environment.
  

EMPIRE Act

S. 541B

A. 9012

• EMPIRE Act – PAGA clone
  

Enacts the Empowering People in Rights Enforcement ​(EMPIRE) Worker Protection Act

Enacts the "Empowering People in Rights Enforcement ​(EMPIRE) Worker Protection Act"; relates to the delegation of ​state enforcement authority to private actors; authorizes an ​affected employee, whistleblower, representative ​organization or an organizational deputy to initiate a public ​enforcement action on behalf of the commissioner for certain ​provisions of the labor law, or any regulation promulgated ​thereunder.

Senate Votes

KEY

Assembly Votes

KEY