Offner v. Rothschild

Esther Offner (plaintiff) was injured when she fell on a Brooklyn sidewalk. Offner’s injuries were not permanent. Offner’s medical and other expenses due to her fall totaled approximately $250, and the fall did not cause Offner to lose any income. Offner sued Margot Rothschild (defendant) in New York supreme court in Brooklyn (i.e., in Kings County), seeking $100,000 in damages. Because Offner’s maximum recoverable damages were less than $10,000—which was the civil court’s jurisdictional limit—the supreme-court judge asked Offner to consent to reduce her damages demand to $10,000 and to have her case removed (in other words, transferred) to civil court in Brooklyn, pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 325(c). The supreme-court judge made this request because the Brooklyn supreme court’s docket was backlogged, which meant that litigants often had to wait years for trial, whereas the Brooklyn civil court’s docket was much less busy, allowing cases to be tried promptly. However, Offner refused to consent to removal. The supreme court’s typical practice if plaintiffs declined removal under § 325(c) was to order removal under CPLR § 325(d). However, in a § 325(d) removal, the civil court’s $10,000 damages limitation would not apply. Accordingly, a plaintiff who should have sued in civil court rather than in the supreme court would, by virtue of a § 325(d) removal, receive the benefit of a swifter trial in civil court while also enjoying the higher damages potential of proceeding in the supreme court. Describing this result as an abuse, the supreme-court judge considered whether he was authorized to transfer the case to civil court (and reduce Offner’s maximum damages to $10,000) over Offner’s objection.