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 COURT’S ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA FOR A 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216; THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH A NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR STRIKING THE REAR OF PLAINTFF’S STOPPED CAR; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE LANDLORD IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defective Release Did Not Trigger 90-Day Clock for Payment of Settlement Amount
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (LEVEL TWO TO ONE) IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE (SECOND DEPT).
A SELLER WHO BREACHES OR SABOTAGES A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT CANNOT RELY ON REMEDY LIMITATION CLAUSES TO PRECLUDE A BUYER’S ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (SECOND DEPT).
ASKING DEFENDANT DURING A TRAFFIC STOP WHETHER HE HAD ANYTHING ILLEGAL IN THE CAR WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY A FOUNDED SUSPICION, ALL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE TAKEN FROM THE CAR AND SUBSEQUENT STATEMENTS AT THE POLICE STATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REAR-END CHAIN-REACTION ACCIDENT OCCURRED IN PENNSYLVANIA BUT ALL PARTIES RESIDED IN NEW YORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THAT PENNSYLVANIA LAW APPLIED, BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT RAISE THE CHOICE OF LAW ISSUE THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE CONSENTED TO THE APPLICABILITY OF NEW YORK LAW (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...