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
THE PROOF FATHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD WAS PRIMARILY BASED UPON HIS INCARCERATION, WHICH WAS NOT SUFFICIENT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PURCHASED OFFICE FURNITURE AFTER HE WAS HIRED TO WORK FROM HOME AND WAS INJURED CARRYING THE FURNITURE TO HIS HOME OFFICE; THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE ANALYZED THE CASE UNDER A RIGID NEW STANDARD FOR EMPLOYEES WORKING FROM HOME; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE LONG-ESTABLISHED STANDARD (THIRD DEPT). ​
PAROLE OFFICER’S SEARCH OF PAROLEE’S APARTMENT, BASED UPON A TIP FROM A PERSON KNOWN TO THE PAROLE OFFICER, WAS SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION, TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPEALABLE ORDER IN A SORA RISK-LEVEL PROCEEDING EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR (LABOR LAW 590), SHE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO MOVE FOR A MISTRIAL BASED ON PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S ALLEGED BEHAVIOR PRIOR TO THE VERDICT; THE ALLEGED BEHAVIOR WAS NOT SO WRONGFUL OR PERVASIVE AS TO JUSTIFY SETTING ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THIRD DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT).
Nature of a Repugnant Verdict Explained—Here the Verdict Convicting Defendant of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Acquitting Defendant of Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance Was Not Repugnant—The Proof at Trial Plays No Part in the Repugnancy Analysis

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...