You are here: / Consumer Law
, ,

REFERENCES TO JUDGMENTS IN A LICENSE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REDACTED IN THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY CONSUMER AFFAIRS OFFICE IN RESPONSE TO A FOIL REQUEST (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that the response of the Nassau County Office for Consumer Affairs to a request for documents relating to licenses held by Home Beyond Center, LLC should not have had the references to judgments redacted:

FOIL requires government agencies to “make available for public inspection and copying all records,” subject to a number of exemptions (Public Officers Law § 87[2]). One such exemption permits an agency to deny access to records that “if disclosed would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . Public Officers Law § 89(2)(b) provides that “[a]n unwarranted invasion of personal privacy includes, but shall not be limited to” seven specified kinds of disclosure … . Where none of the seven specifications is applicable, a court “must decide whether any invasion of privacy . . . is unwarranted’ by balancing the privacy interests at stake against the public interest in disclosure of the information” … .

Here, the respondent failed to demonstrate that the redactions of information contained in the license application file of Home Beyond Center, LLC, relating to “judgments” should be exempt from disclosure as an “unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” … . Matter of Liang v Nassau County Off. of Consumer Affairs, 2019 NY Slip Op 07251, Second Dept 10-9-19

 

, , ,

THE PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE RATE CAPS AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON ENERGY SERVICE COMPANIES WHICH USE THE PUBLIC UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE TO DELIVER ELECTRICITY TO CONSUMERS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, determined the Public Service Commission (PSC) has the authority to impose rate caps on energy service companies (ESCOs) who use the public utility infrastructure:

… [W]e are asked to determine whether the Public Service Law authorizes the Public Service Commission (PSC) to issue an order that conditions access to public utility infrastructure by energy service companies (ESCOs) upon ESCOs capping their prices such that, on an annual basis, they charge no more for electricity than is charged by public utilities unless 30% of the energy is derived from renewable sources. We conclude that the Public Service Law, in authorizing the PSC to set the conditions under which public utilities will transport consumer-owned electricity and gas, has such authority. * * *

Because the PSC is empowered to regulate utilities’ transportation of gas and electricity and created the ESCO markets for the benefit of consumers, and because the legislature has delegated to the PSC the authority to condition ESCOs’ eligibility to access utility lines on such terms and conditions that the PSC determines to be just and reasonable, it follows that the PSC has authority to prohibit utilities from distributing overpriced products by conditioning ESCOs’ access on a price cap. That is, the statutory framework permits the PSC, pursuant to its authority to regulate the energy market, to impose a price cap on ESCOs as a condition of eligibility. Therefore, although the PSC has no direct rate-making authority over ESCOs, it did not exceed its statutory authority in determining that public utility transportation of energy sold by ESCOs is not “just and reasonable” if ESCOs are charging consumers more than that charged by public utilities. Matter of National Energy Marketers Assn. v New York State Pub. Serv. Commn., 2019 NY Slip Op 03655, CtApp 5-9-19

 

SOLICITATIONS FOR NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS WERE MATERIALLY MISLEADING IN VIOLATION OF GENERAL BUSINESS 349, THE SOLICITATIONS IMPLIED THEY WERE SENT DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined solicitations for newspaper and magazine subscriptions were materially misleading, violating the General Business Law and the Executive Law:

… [W]e conclude as a matter of law that solicitations for newspaper and magazine subscriptions promulgated by respondents are materially misleading (… see generally General Business Law §§ 349; 350; Executive Law § 63[12]). The solicitations implied that they were sent directly from the publishers or their authorized agents and offered their lowest available rates. However, the record demonstrates that respondents had at best indirect relationships with publishers (some of whom expressly forbade respondents to sell their publications) and offered rates well above the standard subscription prices. …

The disclaimer on the back of the solicitations is insufficiently prominent or clear to negate the overall misleading impression that consumers are being offered standard publisher rates … . The disclaimer appears on the back of the solicitation, is not referenced on the front, and consists of two dense paragraphs of block text all in the same typeface, making it unlikely to be read by consumers. In addition, the disclaimer either does not address or directly contradicts several claims made on the front of the solicitation, and its use of the term “agent” implies a closer relationship with the publishers than respondents actually have. Matter of People of the State of N.Y. v Orbital Publ. Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 01329, First Dept 2-21-19

 

, ,

GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 349 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW TRUST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that a General Business Law 349 cause of action against a Workers’ Compensation Law trust should not have been dismissed. The trust was taken over by the Workers’ Compensation Board and was found to have a deficit of $220 million. Several lawsuits were brought by members of the trust alleging breach of contract, fraud, breach of a fiduciary duty, etc.:

… [W]ith respect to the General Business Law § 349 cause of action [we] disagree with Supreme Court’s reasoning that the alleged misconduct was not consumer oriented.

“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” … . The amended complaint alleged that “[d]efendants aggressively marketed and advised the [t]rust and self-insurance trusts to the public at large in general as a safe and less expensive alternative to traditional insurance” and that “the information disseminated by [d]efendants was likely to mislead reasonable employers.” The amended complaint further alleged that defendants’ actions “injured and harmed [p]laintiffs, other members of self-insured trusts and the general public” and have “jeopardized the workers’ compensation benefits of New York employers and their employees.” Construing these allegations liberally, as we must, we find that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the misconduct at issue was consumer oriented … . Belair Care Ctr., Inc. v Cool Insuring Agency, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 00015, Third Dept 1-3-19

 

, , , ,

THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the misrepresentation of the dimensions of the cooperative apartment in the listing could not be deemed incorporated by reference into the purchase agreement. The complaint was therefore properly dismissed:

… [P]laintiffs allege that defendants prepared a floor plan, which accompanied the listing for the unit at issue, that stated that the unit was “~1,966” square feet, when it was, in fact, approximately 1,495 square feet. Plaintiffs contend that the floor plan was incorporated into the offering plan by reference, and the offering plan, in turn, was incorporated into the purchase agreement. …

The doctrine of incorporation by reference “is appropriate only where the document to be incorporated is referred to and described in the instrument as issued so as to identify the referenced document beyond all reasonable doubt'”… . Here, the listing is not identified in any of the relevant purchase documents … .

Moreover, any purported representation or warranty is refuted by the clear terms of the purchase agreement, which contains a merger clause, states that no representations are being made by the sponsor, that the unit was being purchased “as is” and that the onus was on the buyer to inspect “to determine the actual dimensions” prior to purchasing  … . …

Reasonable reliance is an element of claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation… . Plaintiffs cannot as a matter of law establish reasonable reliance on a representation concerning the condition of the apartment since they had the means to ascertain the truth of the condition … . …

… [P]plaintiffs’ allegations based on purported representations made in the listing fail to set forth a viable claim under General Business Law §§ 349 or 350, as they do not fall within the type of deceptive acts, that, if permitted to continue, would have a broad impact on consumers at large … . Von Ancken v 7 E. 14 L.L.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08097, First Dept 11-27-18

CONTRACT LAW (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE (CONTRACT LAW, (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONSUMER LAW (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/PURCHASE AGREEMENTS (COOPERATIVES, THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/LISTING (REAL ESTATE, THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (LISTING, (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Fahey, over a concurring opinion, a partial dissent and a dissent, determined that General Business Law 518 requires businesses to post the total price charged to customers using credit cards, which can be higher than that charged to customers who pay cash:

Plaintiffs are five merchants who allege that they wish to engage in differential pricing and to inform customers of their practice by stating the cash price in dollars and cents and the credit card price as a percentage or dollars-and-cents amount, reflecting only the additional charge for credit card purchases and not the total dollars-and-cents price for such purchases. The point is best illustrated by examples. Plaintiffs wish to tell their customers, for example, that “a haircut costs $10.00, and if you pay with a credit card you will pay 3% extra” or “a haircut costs $10.00, and if you pay with a credit card you will pay an additional 30 cents.” … This practice, “listing one price and a separate surcharge amount,” has been described as “a single-sticker regime” … or a “single-sticker-price scheme” … , and we refer to it similarly. The merchants have challenged GBL § 518 as a violation of their First Amendment rights, to the extent that it allows them to charge credit card users higher prices but prohibits them from describing the price difference as they wish. * * *

… [W]e conclude that a merchant complies with GBL § 518 if and only if the merchant posts the total dollars-and-cents price charged to credit card users. In that circumstance, consumers see the highest possible price they must pay for credit card use and the legislative concerns about luring or misleading customers by use of a low price available only for cash purchases are alleviated. To be clear, plaintiffs’ proposed single-sticker pricing scheme — which does not express the total dollars-and-cents credit card price and instead requires consumers to engage in an arithmetical calculation, in order to figure it out — is prohibited by the statute. Expressions Hair Design v Schneiderman, 2018 NY Slip Op 07037, CtApp 10-23-18

CONSUMER LAW (SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP))/CREDIT CARDS  (SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 518 (SELLERS MUST POST THE TOTAL PRICE CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY WITH CREDIT CARDS, WHICH CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT CHARGED TO CUSTOMERS WHO PAY CASH (CT APP))

, ,

ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, partially reversing Supreme Court, over a two-justice concurrence, determined plaintiff’s General Business Law (deceptive business practices) cause of action should not have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff alleged the defendant insurance company pressured physicians to find no causal connection between the injury and the accident (no-fault claims). The Third Department further found that the claims for consequential damages for emotional distress and punitive damages, stemming from breach of contract, were properly dismissed. The concurring justices argued that the emotional distress was a legitimate damages-claim for breach of contract:

​

… [P]laintiff alleged that defendant engaged in a consumer-oriented pattern and practice aimed at the public at large of wrongfully denying claims for no-fault benefits by pressuring the physicians it hired to perform IMEs to provide medical reports that would support the denial of benefits and, further, that she suffered injury as a result of that practice. Such allegations are sufficient to plead a cause of action pursuant to General Business Law § 349 “‘at this early prediscovery stage'”… . …

​

 It has long been the rule that “absent a duty upon which liability can be based, there is no right of recovery for mental distress resulting from the breach of a contract-related duty”… .. As Supreme Court noted, plaintiff failed to satisfy this standard because she did not allege the existence of any relationship or duty between the parties separate from the contractual obligation. …

​

Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages was likewise properly dismissed. Punitive damages may be recovered for breach of contract “only where a defendant’s conduct was (1) actionable as an independent tort, (2) egregious, (3) directed toward the plaintiff and (4) part of a pattern directed at the public” … . Plaintiff’s allegations that defendant engaged in unfair claim settlement practices do not allege a tort independent of the parties’ contract sufficient to state a claim for recovery of punitive damages … . Brown v Government Employees Ins. Co., 2017 NY Slip Op 08774, Third Dept 12-14-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (INSURANCE LAW, ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/INSURANCE LAW ( ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW (ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES  (INSURANCE LAW, ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (BREACH OF CONTRACT, DAMAGES, ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/PUNITIVE DAMAGES  (INSURANCE LAW, ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))/DAMAGES (CONTRACT LAW, ALLEGATION THAT DEFENDANT INSURER PRESSURED PHYSICIANS TO FIND NO CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCIDENT AND INJURY IN NO-FAULT CASES STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER THE GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS NOT AN ELEMENT OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (THIRD DEPT))

, , ,

Elements of Negligence, General Business Law 349 and Tortious Interference with Contract Causes of Action Succinctly Described

The Second Department determined that Supreme Court properly dismissed (for failure to state a cause of action) the negligence cause of action, should not have dismissed the General Business Law 349 cause of action, and properly denied the motion to dismiss the tortious interference with contract cause of action. The court succinctly described the elements of the three causes of action (facts not described in the decision):

To prevail on a negligence cause of action, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a legal duty, a breach of that duty, proximate causation, and damages. “Absent a duty of care, there is no breach, and without breach there can be no liability” … . * * *

To state a cause of action under General Business Law § 349, the complaint must allege that ” a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice'” … . * * *

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contract are the existence of a valid contract between it and a third party, the defendant’s knowledge of that contract, the defendant’s intentional procurement of the third party’s breach of that contract without justification, and damages … . MVB Collision, Inc. v Allstate Ins. Co., 2015 NY Slip Op 05453, 2nd Dept 6-24-15

 

,

Online Promotion Which Offered a Coupon to Persons Who Provided His or Her Email Address Did Not Constitute an “Offer” Which Could Be “Accepted” to Create a Contract/In Light of the Disclaimers the Promotion Was Not “Deceptive” and Plaintiff Suffered No “Actual Injury” within the Meaning of the General Business Law

Plaintiff brought a putative class action alleging an act of deception in an online business promotion.  Defendants “offered to provide to visitors to their website who entered their email address a $1 coupon toward the purchase of their products and further promotional materials.” The complaint alleged the members of the class provided their email addresses but never received a coupon. The Second Department determined the complaint, which alleged breach of contract and a violation of General Business Law 349, was properly dismissed. Because the website indicated the supply of coupons was limited, there was no clearcut “offer” which could form a contract upon acceptance. The online promotion constituted only an “invitation for offers.” Because of the disclaimers, the promotion was not “deceptive” within the meaning of General Business Law 349. Nor did the plaintiff suffer any “actual injury” within the meaning of General Business Law 349:

…[T]he defendants made a prima facie showing that the online promotion did not constitute an offer. Rather, it constituted only an invitation for offers, in light of the fact that the promotion expressly stated that the supply of coupons was “limited.” In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, extrinsic evidence was not admissible to interpret the promotional materials under the circumstances herein … . The record thus showed as a matter of law that the promotion did not create the power of acceptance for consumers and, consequently, no unilateral contract was formed… . * * *

[Re: General Business Law 349], in addition to showing that the conduct was consumer oriented, “[a] prima facie case requires . . . a showing that [the] defendant is engaging in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof” … . “Whether a representation or an omission, the test is whether the allegedly deceptive practice is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances'” … . A plaintiff must also show that he or she suffered an actual injury, as a result of the deceptive act or practice… . …

…[T]he defendants … showed … that the plaintiff did not suffer any “actual injury,” for purposes of the General Business Law § 349 cause of action. To recover damages under General Business Law § 349, a plaintiff need not prove intent to defraud or justifiable reliance … . The plaintiff may not “set[ ] forth deception as both act and injury” … . Here, the record showed as a matter of law that the plaintiff suffered no actual injury, apart from the alleged deceptive act itself … . Amalfitano v NBTY, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 04077, 2nd Dept 5-13-15

 

,

Four-Year Statute of Limitations Under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Delivered, I.E., When the Vehicle Was Leased===Three-Year Statute of Limitations for the General Business Law 349 Cause of Action Started to Run When the Vehicle Was Subsequently Purchased (After the Lease-Period)

Plaintiff leased a car (from BMW) for several years and then purchased it.  After the purchase plaintiff sought coverage for repairs under the Magnuson-Moss … Warranty Act (Warranty Act) and sought damages pursuant to General Business Law 349 (deceptive business practices).  The Second Department determined the Warranty Act cause of action accrued on the date the car was delivered (leased) and therefore was time-barred.  However, the General Business Law cause of action accrued when the car was purchased and was timely:

In moving to dismiss a cause of action as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, a defendant bears the initial burden of demonstrating, prima facie, that the time within which to commence the action has expired … . The burden then shifts to the plaintiff to raise a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled or was otherwise inapplicable, or whether the action was actually commenced within the applicable limitations period … . To make a prima facie showing, the defendant must establish, inter alia, when the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued … .

Claims brought under the Warranty Act are covered by the four-year statute of limitations prescribed by UCC 2-725 … . That statute specifically defines the date of accrual to be “when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach. A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made, except that where a warranty explicitly extends to future performance of the goods and discovery of the breach must await the time of such performance, the cause of action accrues when the breach is or should have been discovered” (UCC 2-725[2]).

Here, BMW met its prima facie burden by establishing that the plaintiff had four years from November 10, 2007, the date she accepted delivery of the vehicle, to commence the Warranty Act cause of action, but that this action was not commenced until November 22, 2011. … The “New Vehicle Limited Warranty” did not guarantee future performance but only promised to repair or replace defective parts for a specified period of time… . …

Actions pursuant to General Business Law § 349 must be commenced within three years of the date of accrual … , which first occurs when the plaintiff has been injured by a deceptive act or practice that is in violation of section 349 … . As this cause of action is predicated on the sale of the vehicle, which took place in October 2010, it was timely commenced on November 22, 2011, within the three-year statute of limitations … . Loiodice v BMW of N Am LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01244, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy