You are here: / / General Business Law 349 Action Must Be Based Upon a Deceptive Act Which...

General Business Law 349 Action Must Be Based Upon a Deceptive Act Which Has an Impact on the General Public

The Third Department determined an action pursuant to General Business Law 349 was properly dismissed because the underlying financial service (re: tax deferred retirement plans) was offered to school districts, not the general public:

“A cause of action to recover damages pursuant to General Business Law § 349 has three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act” … . “The threshold requirement of consumer-oriented conduct is met by a showing that ‘the acts or practices have a broader impact on consumers at large’ in that they are ‘directed to consumers’ or ‘potentially affect similarly situated consumers'” .. . “Consumers,” in turn, generally are defined as “those who purchase goods and services for personal, family or household use” … . An act or practice will be deemed to be deceptive where it “is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances” … .

Applying these principles to the matter before us, it is readily apparent that Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. As a starting point, the underlying complaint fails to sufficiently allege that defendant’s purportedly “deceptive practices [were] aimed at the general public” … . In this regard, it is undisputed that defendant contracted with the plan sponsors, i.e., the relevant school districts, and not the districts’ individual employees, the latter of whom selected their particular investment options from the list of service providers chosen by their employers. School districts, as business-like entities, cannot properly be viewed as consumers for purposes of General Business Law § 349 … . Benetech Inc v Omni Fin Group Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02480, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT DELIVERY DRIVER WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF A BUSINESS LOGISTICS COMPANY WHICH ARRANGED DELIVERIES FOR ITS CLIENTS; CLAIMANT WAS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
BUSINESS PURSUITS EXCLUSION IN THE HOMEOWNER’S INSURANCE POLICY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE FIRE WOULD HAVE OCCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS, A RESPITE HOME FOR ELDERLY AND SPECIAL NEEDS ADULTS, THREE OF THE RESIDENTS DIED IN THE FIRE STARTED BY CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE GARAGE (THIRD DEPT)
DEFENDANT HOMEOWNER DID NOT DIRECT OR EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED PURSUANT TO THE STATUTORY HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION, TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION DOES NOT APPLY, SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT DID NOT CONTROL PLAINTIFF’S WORK (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE BOARD’S REVERSAL OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S FINDING CLAIMANT HAD NOT MADE A WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION WAS BASED ON SPECULATION AND SURMISE (THIRD DEPT).
THE PURCHASE OF A CHECK CASHING BUSINESS DID NOT TRANSFER THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OBLIGATIONS OF THE SELLER TO THE PURCHASER; THE LABOR LAW 581 CRITERIA FOR THE TRANSFER OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OBLIGATIONS WERE NOT MET (THIRD DEPT).
LABOR LAW 240(1) LIABILITY IS NONDELEGABLE AND EXTENDS TO INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS.
Res Ipsa Loquitur Proof Requirements Not Met Re: Cause of Fire
Defendant, a County Sheriff, May Not Have Had the Authority to Order the Plaintiff to Leave the Airport/Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Defendant Had Probable Cause to Arrest Plaintiff for Trespass and Disorderly Conduct/Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Excessive Force Was Used and Whether Plaintiff Was Subjected to Retaliation for the Use of Protected Speech

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Service of a Notice of Claim on the City Did Not Constitute the Service of ... Breach of Contract Allegations Did Not Give Rise to Tort Causes of Action—No...