Court Grants Motion To Certify Class

Posted: April 24, 2026 / Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane / Category Commercial

Court Grants Motion To Certify Class

On March 28, 2026, in Engel v. International Bus. Machs. Corp., Index. No. 654556/2020, Justice Andrea Masley granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Having previously concluded that numerosity, commonality, typicality and superiority were established, the court addressed adequacy of representation. The Court explained:

In its July 10, 2024 Decision, this court denied class certification on the grounds that “plaintiff fail[ed] to proffer any evidence to show that he has the financial resources to prosecute this action on behalf of the class.” (Id. at 16.) A plaintiff’s financial ability to represent the class may be “adequately shown by counsel’s assumption of the risk of costs and expenses in the litigation.” (Gudz v Jemrock Realty Co., LLC, 105 AD3d 625, 626 [1st Dept 2013].) Here, plaintiff discloses that its counsel, Matthew E. Lee, Esq. of Milberg Coleman Bryson Philips Grossman, PLLC, have “agreed to be responsible for all costs and expenses necessary for the prosecution of this action, and have ben [sic] doing so since the commencement of this case.” (NYSCEF 244, Plaintiff’s MOL at 1; NYSCEF 245, Lee aff ¶ 3.) Defendant “does not object to [p]laintiff’s showing of adequacy of representation given that [p]laintiff’s counsel is now ‘responsible for all costs and expenses necessary for the prosecution of this action.’” (NYSCEF 252, Defendant’s MOL in Opposition at 1.)[]

Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has established all the prerequisites for class certification.

(footnote omitted).

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning class certification.