Hurricane Ida - NYC Lawsuit

Submitted by LadyofLorien_ t3_xt23sf in nyc

A group of Queens neighbors and I are putting together a class action lawsuit against the city asking for fair compensation due to their negligence in sewer management that lead to flooding during Hurricane Ida.

Last month, the comptroller's office rejected nearly 4,700 claims of damages citing a policy enacted in 1907- if you or anyone you know has been rejected and wants to join the suit, please fill & share this sign up form!

Additionally, if you know a lawyer who is willing to take on this case- please send in their info!

1,332

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

whitepangolin t1_iqnki18 wrote

I personally didn't face damages, but upvoting for visibility. Fuck these corrupt scumbags for denying all these claims.

286

drpvn t1_iqnp4sj wrote

You don’t actually need to gather many plaintiffs for a class action. You only need one, assuming there aren’t any problems with that one plaintiff (no standing, for example).

102

[deleted] t1_iqnq38i wrote

It certainly helps to have evidence that OP represents a similarly situated class.

Otherwise it’s just a lawsuit.

34

drpvn t1_iqnr6q5 wrote

It’s good knowledge to have but you don’t need that evidence to file the class action.

21

[deleted] t1_iqns49b wrote

There is much you don’t need when filing a suit, but many of them are characteristic of successful suits.

9

drpvn t1_iqnslge wrote

I’m just speaking as someone who’s helped initiate a couple dozen class actions, one of which settled for over a billion dollars.

8

LouisSeize t1_iqsej2r wrote

So, you're a professional represtative plaintiff?

3

drpvn t1_iqseqto wrote

No, I’m a lawyer whose practice includes plaintiff-side work, including class action.

1

LouisSeize t1_iqsi4zk wrote

Good to know. Take a look at the post I just made and see if you agree.

1

rakehellion t1_iqpkgkq wrote

Yeah, but it's the lawyer's job to find these things.

1

[deleted] t1_iqnqbqp wrote

[deleted]

15

drpvn t1_iqnqv7t wrote

The members of the class can’t be one. But you can have just one plaintiff. Numerosity has nothing to do with how many plaintiffs there are.

21

LouisSeize t1_iqshw2n wrote

While Lexis publishes many articles that are useful to lawyers, reading them without a legal education can result in misunderstandings such as yours.

The numerosity requirement means that there are so many members of the class that each one bringing a separate lawsuit is impractical. It does not mean that you need 100 plaintiffs or, indeed, any minimum number.

What you do need in a class action is one or more people who will be representative plaintiffs whom the court believes will *adequately and fairly protect the interests of the class."

That's why the caption in a class action usually reads something like, John Doe, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated v. Big Company, Inc. There will then be a section of the complaint that defines the class, e.g. "The class consists of all persons who purchased the defendant's product called Better Widget between January 1, 2022 and its removal from the market on October 2, 2022."

Incidentally, the document you cited refers to the federal rules for bringing a class action in federal court. Class actions can also, in some cases, be brought in New York State courts. See CPLR Section 901 for the basic rule.

0

LadyofLorien_ OP t1_iqnq5mx wrote

Yes but still, I want to spread the word!

6

drpvn t1_iqnr2cy wrote

Definitely. And having a bunch of interested people is a big help for when counsel has to decide which should actually serve as plaintiffs.

5

jeremiadOtiose t1_iqpkgj3 wrote

good luck. my basement was flooded with 12 inches of rainwater but my insurance company paid. i still have nightmares of that night and i'm glad i had gone done at 1230 to get my laundry out of the dryer..

38

the_bronx t1_iqoemhl wrote

Our taxes pay relief for every other victim of natural disaster except when WE need it. I hope they win fucking corrupt politicians.

36

Chewwy987 t1_iqokuvt wrote

We have had sewer issues dep came out did a courtesy flush then said they’ll come back and fix something , They can’t back and grin said there’s nothing to fix. What a joke. The street constantly floods

I still believe there’s something that needs to be fixed but idk go to contact of know what it is. I call 311 regularly for a courtesy flush to keep the building sewage system working

19

KaiDaiz t1_iqp3tzx wrote

Is the storm drains clear at end of blocks? bc clearing that is also the responsibility of whomever owns the property adjacent to it.

7

Chewwy987 t1_iqp4fze wrote

That actually is clear. DEP said there’s something wrong with the pipe from the house to Gf Main sewer it affects our building and the one next door. I think first guy said they need a something fixed he didn’t know how to fix it. Someone else came I don’t think they are a specialist but they decided nothing needed fixing who knows dep got their wires crossed Abs I didn’t push them enough to get it fixed.

0

KaiDaiz t1_iqp4v20 wrote

sounds like that house with the busted pipe is responsible

6

Chewwy987 t1_iqp4zhs wrote

It Ed thr connector or something forgot what it was they just said do would be back for it someone more specialized cause the first guy didn’t know how to fix it apparently the second guy decided there was no issue and it’s been years boss

−2

KaiDaiz t1_iqp597u wrote

Generally the property is responsible for all the pipes that connect to city sewers and cleaning 18inches from curb

6

Chewwy987 t1_iqp7p1l wrote

Yes I know it was a city issue I dropped the ball and didn’t follow up. I think they are going to have the concrete broken to have it fixed. We replaced our pipes 5 years ago had the did walk and’s street dug out to replace it.

−2

IHRSM t1_iquiokd wrote

> I think it’s a conscious first guy said they need a socialist

Well, that explains why nothing's fixed.

1

Hadrians_Fall t1_iqns4qt wrote

Please sign up to support if you suffered damage!

11

Rebel90x t1_iqoguov wrote

Define negligence. What do you believe the city did wrong, be specific.

11

KaiDaiz t1_iqnyp6l wrote

Not going to work. Last time this was successful, they dug up the pipe to show it was damaged/crushed hence failure of city and them liable for damage. Doubtful this the same for this case.

7

Towel4 t1_iqo2lp4 wrote

Upvoted

Good luck

6

that_dapper_llama t1_iqpwd83 wrote

I’m ngl this seems a little sus to put your name and contact info into a random google form especially given no law firm has taken this case.

6

Kerfuckle t1_iqp4aj7 wrote

Good luck i hope all of you are made whole. Even the rain (from i believe 2 weeks ago) caused a flood in the basement, albeit not as bad as ida.

In my area, i believe the choice is to close off some sort of gate that prevents flooding the highway. This action ends up flooding the residents instead. This has been happening for years (potentially over a decade) with no end in site as consistent empty promises are made after every occurrence to alleviate the issue. It’s passing the buck down the line every time

2

MIKE_THE_KILLER t1_iqopzyz wrote

Yea i got hit from Ida as well. It was prob like a few hundred $$$ in damages. Wasn’t too bad honestly for me. I did get my basement 7-8 inches of flooding.

1

Kerfuckle t1_iqp4joq wrote

What is this policy from 1907 that they use to reject claims?

1

KaiDaiz t1_iqp5vvh wrote

1907 legal decision that does not hold municipal governments responsible for damage due to “extraordinary or excessive” rainfall, according to the letter from Lander.

Basically saying they not responsible for acts of god and in event of a working sewer that overflow beyond the amount of flow it was spec for.

if the sewer was broken and fail to do job you have a case. if sewer was overwhelm but fully function as design, no case

18

edman007 t1_iqpfrql wrote

Yup, and I strongly believe they are interpreting it wrong.

If you build a house on a flood plain that regularly sees floods of 5ft and your house gets flooded from a storm that's your own problem, that's basically what the state law is. It's not the states problem you ensure your house doesn't flood.

However if you build your house on that flood plain 6 feet into the air so that regular floods don't cause property damage you might think you're fine. But what happens when the city builds a levy and traps your inside to protect your neighbor? Now regular floods at your house at 10 feet because the state changed the drainage resulting in higher flood waters for you.

That's really the crux of the issue. The state isn't responsible for making sure your house doesn't flood, but they should be responsible to allowing projects to go through that cause floods to be much more severe to the point that it overpowers the flood protections you have that would have been sufficient had the state not screwed it up.

−2

soyeahiknow t1_iqu6vde wrote

Did fema deny you payment? Almost all my neighbors got fema money.

1

raggs34 t1_itpzeds wrote

Did anything develop here?

1

cmc t1_iqphe4d wrote

Seeing this now but our building was affected so I'm commenting so I can get back to this tomorrow

0

Lilmaggot t1_iqqr563 wrote

I’m out in Rockaway and still see the odd sewer grate packed with sand (from Sandy in 2012).

0

Euphoric-Program t1_iqnrywf wrote

What happened to home insurance?

−1

KaiDaiz t1_iqo82v5 wrote

Home insurance typically don't cover much for sewerage backup or not even cover at all. Need separate policy. Also even if they do cover most insurance plans even flood don't cover lost belongings in basements. They will cover some equipment to a certain amount

16