Supreme Court, Rensselaer County, September 28, 2022

Bond Schoeneck & King, PLLC, Buffalo (Peter H. Wiltenburg of counsel), for defendant.

Sussman & Associates, Goshen (Jonathan R. Goldman of counsel), for plaintiff.

In this action commenced under Labor Law § 740 (whistleblower claim), the defendant Arc of Rensselaer County seeks to strike the demand for a jury trial in the plaintiff Renee Williams's note of issue—arguing that Labor Law § 740 (4) (b), which expressly provides for a jury trial in a Labor Law § 740 action, was not enacted until after the plaintiff commenced this action, that the statute is not retroactive, and therefore that the plaintiff has no inherent right to a jury trial. The plaintiff opposes, asserting that it is in the court's discretion to allow a jury trial and that she has an inherent right to a trial by jury.

For the reasons that follow the court grants the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's [*2]jury demand.

The plaintiff commenced the instant action on October 9, 2020. Labor Law § 740 was amended on October 26, 2021 (L 2021, ch 522, § 1), effective on January 26, 2022, towards expanding and providing more complete relief to a plaintiff, particularly including the right to assert both a whistleblower claim and other causes of action. Prior to chapter 522 of the Laws of 2021, in a Labor Law § 740 action, a plaintiff had no right to a jury trial, and was limited to equitable relief "such as injunction, reinstatement, back pay and the like . . . [and not] general monetary damages, or any monetary relief, indeed, other than in the nature of an accounting for back pay, or restoration of benefits" (Richard A. Givens, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 30, Labor Law § 740 at 566 [1988 ed]).

As noted, post January 26, 2022, given the right of a plaintiff to assert both a whistleblower claim and other causes of action, a plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial where the complaint includes both a whistleblower claim and additional claims.

Turning to the defendant's argument that since the plaintiff's action was commenced prior to the effective date of chapter 522 of the Laws of 2021 she is not entitled to its retroactive application, the court is not so persuaded.

"Two axioms of statutory interpretation are relevant in determining whether a statute should be given retroactive effect. Amendments are presumed to have prospective application unless the Legislature's preference for retroactivity is explicitly stated or clearly indicated. However, remedial legislation{**77 Misc 3d at 214} should be given retroactive effect in order to effectuate its beneficial purpose" (People v Dyshawn B., 196 AD3d 638, 639 [2d Dept 2021] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

Here, in the court's view, the 2021 amendments to Labor Law § 740 were remedial, intended to correct what the legislature viewed as deficiencies in the prior law (Sponsor's Mem in Support of 2021 NY Senate Bill S4394, enacted as L 2021, ch 522, § 1).

Problematic, however, for the plaintiff is that in her complaint she seeks only the equitable relief afforded her in the prior statute, and does not assert any additional claims for compensation. Nor has she moved to amend her complaint to assert any additional claims as now afforded by chapter 522 of the Laws of 2021. Accordingly, her relief under Labor Law § 740, as stated in her complaint, is limited to reinstatement, back pay and benefits and attorney's fees, and therefore she is not entitled to a jury trial (Scaduto v Restaurant Assoc. Indus., 180 AD2d 458 [1st Dept 1992]).

Accordingly, it is ordered, defendant's motion is granted and the demand for a jury trial is stricken from the note of issue.