You are here: / / THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE CIGARETTE MARKETING...

THE COMPLAINT ADEQUATELY ALLEGED DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE CIGARETTE MARKETING STANDARDS ACT (CMSA) BY OFFERING REBATES WHICH EFFECTIVELY LOWERED THE PRICE OF CIGARETTES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action for the violation of the Cigarette Marketing Standards Act (CMSA) by offering rebates which effectively lowered the price of cigarettes:

… [T]he CMSA and its regulations make clear that rebates which directly or indirectly serve to reduce prices below legal minimums constitute violations of the prohibition on offers to sell or sales of cigarettes at less than minimum prices (see Tax Law § 484[a][1]). The Supreme Court therefore erred in directing dismissal of the complaint on the basis that the alleged conduct involved the provision of rebates. Contrary to [defendant’s] contention, the complaint sufficiently pleaded that these rebates resulted in prices below the legal minimum (see 20 NYCRR 84.1[b][2]).

The Supreme Court also erred in determining that the good faith “meeting competition” exception to the CMSA applied as a matter of law. The exception permits an agent or wholesale dealer to sell cigarettes “at a price made in good faith to meet the price of a competitor who is rendering the same type of services and is selling the same article at cost to him [or her]” … . …

… [T]he complaint sufficiently pleads that [defendant] did not offer the rebates in good faith to meet the prices of a competitor selling cigarettes at its cost … . The complaint alleges that [defndant] lowered its prices to beat, not meet, legal competition. Moreover, it alleges that [defendant’s] sales manager was aware that such rebates violated the CMSA … . Amsterdam Tobacco Co., Inc. v Harold Levinson Assoc., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00390, Second Dept 1-26-22

 

You might also like
THE EIGHT-INCH WIDE BEAM CLAIMANT WAS MOVING ALONG WHEN HE FELL WAS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SCAFFOLD, BRINGING THE ACTION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LABOR LAW 240(1); THE SAFETY LINE PROVIDED TO CLAIMANT DID NOT PROTECT HIM FROM THE FALL; CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE ADMINISTRATOR OF PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S ESTATE BROUGHT A WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION IN SUPREME COURT AND DEFENDANTS MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ARGUING PLANTIFF’S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY WAS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; RATHER THAN DECIDE THE MOTION, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD WHICH HAS PRIMARY JURISDICTION RE: THE APPLICABILITY OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
THE 2ND DEPARTMENT REVERSED THE AWARD OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE BANK BECAUSE ONE OF TWO BORROWERS WAS NOT NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING; THIS RULING MAY NOT HOLD UP BECAUSE, ON MARCH 30, 2021, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD ONLY ONE BORROWER NEED BE NAMED IN THE RPAPL 1306 FILING (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Fourth Amendment Rights Violated When Officer Opened an Envelope Containing Defendant’s Personal Belongings at the Hospital Where Defendant Was Being Treated—The Fact that the Officer Thought Defendant Was a Crime Victim at the Time Does Not Matter—The Personal Belongings, Which Included Evidence of a Robbery, Should Have Been Suppressed
AFTER PLAINTIFFS’ CAR WAS SERVICED, A TIRE (WHEEL?) FELL OFF, CAUSING AN ACCIDENT; THE PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR THEORY OF LIABILITY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFAULT JUDGMENT GIVEN RES JUDICATA EFFECT.
AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC POLICY AN INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION CANNOT BE BROUGHT AGAINST A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY (SECOND DEPT).

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

THE ONE YEAR TIME-LIMIT IN CPLR 3404 FOR A MOTION TO RESTORE AN ACTION TO THE... THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS...