Opinion
April 4, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.).
The IAS Court properly determined that Matter of Rose v. Moody ( 83 N.Y.2d 65, cert denied sub nom. Attorney Gen. of N.Y. v Moody, 511 U.S. 1084) should be applied retroactively under either the criteria set forth in Gurnee v. Aetna Life Cas. Co. ( 55 N.Y.2d 184, 192, cert denied 459 U.S. 837 [relying upon Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 106-107]) or those more recently enunciated in Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation ( 509 U.S. 86, 94-100 [abandoning the Chevron Oil retroactivity analysis]). Retroactive monetary relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ( see, Deutsch v. Crosson, 171 A.D.2d 837, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 857) was appropriate because it was incidental to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought ( see, Shields v. Katz, 143 A.D.2d 743, 745; cf., Murphy v. Capone, 191 A.D.2d 683, 684-685; Casillas v Perales, 154 A.D.2d 420; Antonsen v. Ward, 943 F.2d 198, 203-204).
The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the action to proceed as a class action and certifying a class, since the members of the class are indigent and may become confused and face serious difficulties in asserting their rights individually ( see, Tindell v. Koch, 164 A.D.2d 689). However, in fashioning a remedy which required defendants to conduct computer searches and then promulgate notices with specified contents, including foreign language translations, the court improperly imposed requirements beyond those mandated by Matter of Rose v. Moody ( supra), and which are not otherwise required ( see, Toure v United States, 24 F.3d 444; Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, cert denied 466 U.S. 929). Moreover, under the circumstances herein, the tailoring of the relief should have been left to the administrative expertise of defendants ( see, Koskinas v Carrillo, 214 A.D.2d 512, 514), and we have modified accordingly.
Concur — Wallach, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.