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 TOWN CODE PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES A PROPERTY INSPECTION BEFORE ISSUANCE OF A RENTAL PERMIT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BECAUSE THE PROVISION ALLOWS THE LANDLORD TO HAVE THE INSPECTION DONE BY A STATE-LICENSED ENGINEER, AS OPPOSED TO THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR (SECOND DEPT). ​
EMAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF PLAINTIFF’S PHD PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AGAINST THE DIOCESE; PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED BY A PRIEST WHEN HE WAS 15 TO 16 (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER ALLEGED TWO FELLOW OFFICERS NEGLIGENTLY INJURED HIM WITH A TASER; PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE HIS FELLOW OFFICERS IN TORT AND HIS EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS DEFENDANT COMPANY’S EMPLOYEE AND WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT; DEFENDANT COMPANY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DRIVER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR, NOT AN EMPLOYEE; THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT USES THE TERM “INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR” IS NOT DISPOSITIVE OF THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF FELL THROUGH PLANKING WHICH DID NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECT A SHAFT OPENING; THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF’S FOREMAN INSTRUCTED PLAINTIFF NOT TO ENTER THE SHAFT SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE EMAIL EXCHANGE IN WHICH THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS AGREED TO DID NOT SATISFY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, SELLER WAS FREE TO BACK OUT AND SEEK A HIGHER PRICE.
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE, PURSUANT TO THE TOWN CODE, FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA OF THE SIDEWALK WHERE PLAINTIFF TRIPPED OVER A PROTRUDING BOLT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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...