You are here: / / PLAINTIFFS, ATTORNEYS PRACTICING LANDLORD-TENANT LAW, ALLEGED DEFENDANT...
,

PLAINTIFFS, ATTORNEYS PRACTICING LANDLORD-TENANT LAW, ALLEGED DEFENDANT PUBLISHER OF “NEW YORK LANDLORD-TENANT LAW” OMITTED OR INACCURATELY PRESENTED SOME OF THE RELEVANT STATUTES AND REGULATIONS AND THEREFORE VIOLATED GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 (DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES); THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ALLEGE DEFENDANT’S ACT OR PRACTICE WAS MATERIALLY MISLEADING (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a dissent, determined plaintiffs did not state a cause of action for deceptive business practices (General Business Law (GBL) 349) against the defendant-publisher of a legal resource book, “New York Landlord-Tenant Law” (commonly called the “Tanbook”). Plaintiffs, attorneys who practice landlord-tenant law, alleged the Tanbook, which is published annually, purported to include all the relevant statutes and regulations but, in fact, omitted or inaccurately presented some statutes and regulations. The Court of Appeals found that the complaint adequately alleged a cause of action that was consumer-oriented, but did not adequately allege defendant’s act or practice was misleading in a material way:

… [P]laintiffs’ cause of action is based on purchases of yearly editions of the Tanbook, under a sales agreement that charged extra for any updates of the year’s materials contained in the corresponding edition. Plaintiffs’ allegations are limited to omissions and inaccuracies in a section of the Tanbook they knew was subject to legislative amendment, which they concede were corrected in the 2017 edition after the errors were brought to defendant’s attention, and which were specifically contemplated by defendant’s express disclaimer of the currentness of the Tanbook’s contents. Under the circumstances, plaintiffs, or any reasonable consumer, could not have been materially misled to believe that defendant guaranteed Part III of the Tanbook was complete and accurate at any given time. Thus, because plaintiffs failed to adequately plead this element, their GBL § 349 cause of action was properly dismissed. Himmelstein, McConnell, Gribben, Donoghue & Joseph, LLP v Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 03485, CtApp 6-3-21

 

You might also like
TRIAL COURT PROPERLY CHARGED THE JURY WITH THE INITIAL AGGRESSOR EXCEPTION TO THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED.
HERE AN ALLEGED PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENT BY THE ROBBERY VICTIM, OFFERED AT TRIAL SOLELY FOR IMPEACHMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; THE VICTIM WAS THE SOLE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE FACTS (CT APP). ​
Defense Attorney’s Conflict of Interest Amounted to Ineffective Assistance
BASED UPON JUROR MISCONDUCT, THE TRIAL JUDGE SET ASIDE THE JURY VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT SEX OFFENDER DID NOT SUFFER FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND ORDERED A NEW TRIAL; THE APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED; THE COURT OF APPEALS REINSTATED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S RULING (CT APP).
FEDERAL CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL MARINE INTERDICTION AGENT IS NOT A PEACE OFFICER UNDER NEW YORK LAW; THEREFORE THE AGENT MADE A VALID CITIZEN’S ARREST OF AN ERRATIC DRIVER HE OBSERVED WHILE ON THE HIGHWAY; MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE WEAPON FOUND IN DEFENDANT’S CAR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
NON-MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR THE GAP BETWEEN A SUBWAY TRAIN AND THE PLATFORM PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; HOWEVER THE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR GAP-RELATED ACCIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
FACT THAT SIDEWALK DEFECT OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS NOT IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY. STANDING ALONE, DOES NOT ENTITLE DEFENDANT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Different Monetary Standards in Wicks Law (Re: Bids for Construction Contracts) for Different Regions of State Did Not Violate Home Rule Section of State Constitution

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

PURSUANT TO NEW YORK CITY CIVIL COURT ACT 1808, COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR ISSUE... KINGS COUNTY SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE EAVESDROPPING WARRANTS...