You are here: / Consumer Law
,

Criteria for Deceptive Business Practices Explained

The Fourth Department determined that the defendant's (One Source's) violation of General Business Law 349 had been proven. Defendant had misled car-purchasers by informing them they were required to purchase an extended service contract or warranty as a condition of a loan.  Only at the closing of loan were the purchasers informed they could waive the warranty.  The court explained the elements of a section 349 violation:

Pursuant to section 349, deceptive business acts or practices are unlawful, and a ” [petitioner] under section 349 must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the [consumer] suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act' ” … . With respect to the second element, an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way is defined as a representation or omission “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances” … . Contrary to respondents' contention, we conclude that petitioner established that second element, i.e., that One Source's actions were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. One Source's actions were misleading in a material way in light of the fact that the consumers at issue were dependent on One Source to find them the financing to purchase their vehicles, and they were willing to pay for a warranty in order to obtain their loans. People v One Source Networking Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01068, 4th Dept 2-4-15


,

Failure to Notify Insured of Change in Coverage for Fire Insurance (In Violation of Insurance Law 3425 (d)) May Constitute a Deceptive Business Practice Under General Business Law 349

The Second Department determined that the insurer's (Quincy's) failure to notify the insured of a change in a the coverage afforded by a homeowner's policy (in violation of Insurance Law 3425 (d)) supported a cause of action for deceptive business practices under General Business Law 349. Quincy had notified the insured's broker of the change, but not the insured:

The elements of a cause of action to recover damages for deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349 are that the defendant engaged in a deceptive act or practice, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented, and that the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of the deceptive act or practice … . ” Intent to defraud and justifiable reliance by the plaintiff are not elements of the statutory claim” … . Conduct has been held to be sufficiently consumer-oriented to satisfy the statute where it constituted a standard or routine practice that was “consumer-oriented in the sense that [it] potentially affect[ed] similarly situated consumers” … .

Here, Quincy's submissions failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that its failure to comply with the notice requirements set forth in Insurance Law § 3425(d) did not constitute a deceptive business practice. Quincy, in its submissions, admitted that it sought to change and reduce coverage by eliminating a particular endorsement to its New York homeowners' insurance policies, including the plaintiffs' insurance policy. Upon the plaintiffs' renewal of the policy, Quincy eliminated the endorsement, but failed to notify those insureds of that change in the manner prescribed by the Insurance Law. Moreover, the plaintiffs, who continued to seek full replacement costs in relation to the fire that destroyed their home, were clearly injured by the lack of notice that they were underinsured. Valentine v Quincy Mut Fire Ins Co, 2014 NY Slip Op 08984, 2nd Dept 12-24-14

 

, , , , ,

Purchase of Property Encumbered by an Unsatisfied Mortgage Gave Rise to Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Civil Conspiracy Causes of Action Against Title Insurance Company

Third-party plaintiff, Drummond, purchased property that was encumbered by an unsatisfied mortgage held by plaintiff bank. Drummond sued the title company, third-party defendant New York Land, as well as the company from which she procured her mortgage, Residential, and the bank to which the mortgage was transferred, Wells Fargo.  The third-party defendants brought CPLR 3211 motions to dismiss. The Second Department determined the causes of action against New York Land for negligence and negligent misrepresentation properly survived a motion to dismiss because the relationship between Drummond and New York Title was “so close as to approach privity,” but no such relationship was demonstrated with Residential and Wells Fargo.  The Second Department further determined the fraud and civil conspiracy causes of action against New York Land should not have been dismissed, explaining the pleading requirements. In addition, the Second Department determined that the suit was not “consumer-related” and therefore the General Business Law 349 cause of action was properly dismissed:

Although there was no contract between Drummond and New York Land, affording the pleadings a liberal construction and accepting all facts alleged as true …, the third-party complaint supports Drummond’s contention that the relationship between these two parties was so close as to approach privity .. . Indeed, the pleading alleges that New York Land was aware that the abstract and title report that it prepared were to be used for the specific purpose of facilitating a sale or mortgage of the property, that New York Land knew that Drummond was a member of a definable class who would rely on the certification in furtherance of that purpose, and that there was conduct between New York Land and Drummond evincing New York Land’s understanding of Drummond’s reliance … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of New York Land’s motion which were to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action, the third-party causes of action alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation insofar as asserted against it. * * *

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . “All of the elements of a fraud claim must be supported by factual allegations containing the details constituting the wrong’ in order to satisfy the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b)” … . In certain circumstances, however, it may be “almost impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud where those circumstances are peculiarly within the knowledge of [an adverse] party” … . “Under such circumstances, the heightened pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b) may be met when the material facts alleged in the complaint, in light of the surrounding circumstances, are sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct’ including the adverse party’s knowledge of, or participation in, the fraudulent scheme” … . Here, accepting all facts alleged as true … , the third-party complaint contains sufficient allegations of fact from which it can be inferred that New York Land was aware of the alleged fraudulent scheme and intended to aid in the commission thereof … . * * *

“Although New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort . . . as an independent cause of action, a plaintiff may plead the existence of a conspiracy in order to connect the actions of the individual defendants with an actionable, underlying tort and establish that those actions were part of a common scheme” … . Again, affording the third-party complaint a liberal construction, Drummond alleged sufficient facts from which it may be inferred that New York Land knowingly participated, with certain other third-party defendants, in the alleged fraudulent scheme … . * * *

General Business Law § 349 is a broad consumer protection statute, which declares “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce” to be unlawful (General Business Law § 349[a]…). A party claiming the benefit of General Business Law § 349 must, as a threshold matter, ” charge conduct that is consumer oriented'” … . “The single shot transaction, which is tailored to meet the purchaser’s wishes and requirements, does not, without more, constitute consumer-oriented conduct for the purposes of this statute” … . Rather, the defendant’s acts or practices “must have a broad impact on consumers at large” … . Here, Drummond’s General Business Law § 349 cause of action is predicated upon allegations that the third-party defendants fraudulently induced her to purchase the subject property and finance it with a mortgage loan from [Residential]. As the Supreme Court properly concluded, these factual allegations do not amount to conduct that has an impact on the public at large and, as such, do not state a cause of action for violation of General Business Law § 349 … . JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v Hall, 2014 NY Slip Op 07475, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

, , ,

No Actionable Violations by Bank Re: Overdraft Charges/Overdraft Charges Are Not Interest

The First Department determined plaintiff had not stated causes of action against a bank based in part upon alleged violations of statements in a checking-account brochure issued by the bank.  The complaint challenged the method used by the bank to impose overdraft charges on plaintiff’s checking account, alleging breach of contract, violations of General Business Law 349 and usury.  With respect to the General Business Law and usuary causes of action, the court wrote:

To state a claim under General Business Law § 349, “a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has engaged in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and that plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof” … . A ” deceptive act or practice'” is defined as “a representation or omission likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances'” … * * *  Plaintiff makes no claim that the applicability of his overdraft protection was not disclosed to him. * * *

The third cause of action, alleging usury, was properly dismissed because, as found by the motion court, overdraft charges are not interest. “If an instrument provides that the creditor will receive additional payment in the event of a contingency beyond the borrower’s control, the contingent payment constitutes interest within the meaning of the usury statutes” … . Even assuming a debtor-creditor relationship between the parties, the contingency of an account overdraft would have been within plaintiff’s control … . Feld v Apple Bank for Sav, 2014 NY Slip Op 02662, 1st Dept 4-17-14

 

, , ,

No Private Right of Action for Homeowners Against Lenders Under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)—Home Affordable Modification Program Was Not Enacted Solely for the Benefit of Homeowners(?)

The Second Department, after finding that the doctrine of judicial estoppel did not apply because there was no final determination adopting the plaintiff’s contrary position in the first litigation, determined the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), enacted pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), did not create a private right of action against a lender or loan servicer.  The lender had denied plaintiff’s application for a permanent HAMP loan modification and plaintiff’s brought suit alleging breach of contract (re: a trial period plan or TPP), fraud in the inducement, promissory estoppel and a violation of General Business Law 349:

When, as here, a statute does not provide an express private right of action, the courts will imply a private right of action only upon examination of the following three factors: (1) whether the plaintiff is one of the class for whose particular benefit the statute was enacted; (2) whether recognition of a private right of action would promote the legislative purpose; and (3) whether creation of such a right would be consistent with the legislative scheme” … .

As to the first factor, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 USC §§ 5201-5261; hereinafter the EESA), which authorized the United States Department of the Treasury to promulgate the HAMP, was enacted “to immediately provide authority and facilities that the Secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States” (12 USC § 5201[1]) and “to ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that (A) protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings; (B) preserves homeownership and promotes jobs and economic growth; (C) maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States; and (D) provides public accountability for the exercise of such authority” (12 USC § 5201[2]). Similarly, Section 201(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (111 P.L. 22, § 201[a][2][A][i], 123 Stat 1632, 1638) simply articulated a Congressional finding that, in order to reduce the number of foreclosures and stabilize real property values, mortgage lenders should be given authorization to modify mortgage loans consistent with applicable guidelines promulgated by the United States Department of the Treasury pursuant to EESA. Thus, although financially struggling homeowners may derive a benefit from the HAMP, that program was not promulgated solely for their particular benefit … . As to the second factor, the underlying purpose of the HAMP is to incentivize mortgage loan servicers to reduce monthly mortgage payments and, thus, prevent avoidable home foreclosures … . Accordingly, a private right of action against a lender or loan servicer arising from an alleged breach of a TPP agreement is inconsistent with the purpose of HAMP, as judicial recognition of such a private right of action would deter lenders and loan servicers from participating in the HAMP … . As to the third factor, the EESA expressly provides for civil actions by the Secretary of the Treasury (see 12 USC § 5229[a][1]) and for actions seeking equitable relief against the Secretary of the Treasury (see 12 USC § 5229[a][2], [3]), but makes no reference to private rights of action by borrowers against mortgage lenders or loan servicers. Moreover, given that, as noted above, private rights of action could conceivably deter lenders and loan servicers from participating in the HAMP, which would, in turn, undermine the HAMP’s purpose, allowing for a private right of action would be inconsistent with the legislative scheme of EESA. Since the plaintiffs’ claims here are intertwined with the defendants’ alleged obligations under the HAMP, and as no private right of action exists under the HAMP, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action… . [emphasis added]  Davis v Citibank NA, 2014 NY Slip Op 02557, 2nd Dept 4-16-14

 

General Business Law 349 Action Must Be Based Upon a Deceptive Act Which Has an Impact on the General Public

The Third Department determined an action pursuant to General Business Law 349 was properly dismissed because the underlying financial service (re: tax deferred retirement plans) was offered to school districts, not the general public:

“A cause of action to recover damages pursuant to General Business Law § 349 has three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act” … . “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'” .. . “Consumers,” in turn, generally are defined as “those who purchase goods and services for personal, family or household use” … . An act or practice will be deemed to be deceptive where it “is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances” … .

Applying these principles to the matter before us, it is readily apparent that Supreme Court properly granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. As a starting point, the underlying complaint fails to sufficiently allege that defendant’s purportedly “deceptive practices [were] aimed at the general public” … . In this regard, it is undisputed that defendant contracted with the plan sponsors, i.e., the relevant school districts, and not the districts’ individual employees, the latter of whom selected their particular investment options from the list of service providers chosen by their employers. School districts, as business-like entities, cannot properly be viewed as consumers for purposes of General Business Law § 349 … . Benetech Inc v Omni Fin Group Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 02480, 3rd Dept 4-10-14

 

,

“Filed Rate Doctrine” Precluded Lawsuit Alleging Unreasonable Premium

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Skelos, the Second Department determined the “filed rate doctrine” precluded a lawsuit alleging an insurance premium (re: the employment of uninsured subcontractors) was unreasonable. The action was brought before the premium was paid.  For that reason, the court dismissed the unjust enrichment and breach of contract causes of action (which require damages), noting that the proper action was one seeking a declaratory judgment. In determining the General Business Law section 349 action was properly dismissed, the Second Department explained, in great detail which cannot be fairly summarized here, the “filed rate doctrine:”

The filed rate doctrine bars actions against federal- and state-regulated entities which are “grounded on the allegation that the rates charged by [those entities] are unreasonable” … . “Simply stated, the doctrine holds that any filed rate’—that is, one approved by the governing regulatory agency [here, the Insurance Department]—is per se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers” … . Thus, “a consumer’s claim, however disguised, seeking relief for an injury allegedly caused by the payment of a rate on file with a regulatory commission, is viewed as an attack upon the rate approved by the regulatory commission” and, therefore, barred by the doctrine … .  W Park Assoc Inc v Everest Natl Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 07724, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

, ,

Issues to Be Determined in Inquest After Default in Contract Action Explained; Viability of Fraud Cause of Action in Action Based on Contract Explained

In a contract action, the Third Department noted that: (1) a limitation of liability clause in a contract can be raised by the defaulting party after a default in the inquest on damages; (2) the court can determine whether the defaulting party stated valid causes of action; and (3) allegations of deceptive practices aimed at the general public state a cause of action under General Business Law 349.  In explaining why the fraud cause of action was valid in this contract-based case, the Third Department wrote:

In order to recover on the third cause of action for fraud, the defrauded party must allege a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact known to be false and made with the intent to deceive, as well as justifiable reliance and damages … .  While it is the general rule that “[a] separate cause of action seeking damages for fraud cannot stand when the only fraud alleged relates to a breach of contract” …, defendants’ allegations of fraud do not concern any express terms of the contract or third-party defendants’ failure to perform those term ….  Rather, defendants allege that third-party defendants fraudulently induced them into entering the contract by falsely representing that they were skilled, competent and experienced in providing construction management services.  Those allegations are not redundant of the breach of contract cause of action, which claims that third-party defendants failed to perform the terms of the contract … .  Defendants also alleged that they relied on the representations …, and the allegations permit us to infer that the reliance was justified.  Nor is there anything in the complaint or contract that would suggest that their reliance was unjustified … .  84 Lumber Co LP v Barringer…, 516235, 3rd Dept 10-17-13

 

, , , ,

Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Causes of Action Dismissed as Duplicative

The Fourth Department dismissed as duplicative causes of action sounding in fraud and breach of fiduciary duty in complaints against dentists also alleging malpractice, negligence, breach of General Business Law section 349 and 350, and failure to obtain informed consent, all based on dental treatment provided to children:

We agree with defendants that the court erred in denying those parts of their respective motions seeking dismissal of the fraud and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action, and we therefore modify the order by dismissing the first and third causes of action of the amended complaints against defendants.  “Dismissal of a fraud cause of action is required ‘[w]here [it] gives rise to damages which are not separate and distinct from those flowing from an alleged [dental] malpractice cause of action’ ” … .  Inasmuch as the damages sought by plaintiffs, including punitive damages, are the same for the fraud and dental malpractice causes of action, we conclude that the fraud cause of action must be dismissed.  We further conclude that the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action must be dismissed because it is duplicative of the malpractice cause of action … .  Both the breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and dental malpractice cause of action are based on the same facts and seek identical relief… . Matter of Small Smiles Litigation … v Forba Holdings LLC…, 996, 4th Dept 9-27-13

 

,

Provision Which Violates General Business Law 395-a (Re: Maintenance Agreements) Did Not Render Contract Null and Void

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read (with a dissent by Judge Smith) the Court of Appeals determined that a contract provision which violated General Business Law 395-a (2) did not render the contract null and void and a private right of action pursuant to General Business Law section 349 did not lie for the violation.  Section 395-a provides that a maintenance agreement covering parts and/or service can not be terminated by the party offering the agreement during the term of the agreement.  The maintenance agreement at issue included a “store closure” provision which allowed the defendant to terminate the maintenance agreement in the event of closure of the store issuing the agreement.  The Court assumed that the “store closure” provision violated the General Business Law but held the violation did not render the contract null and void.  The Court further determined the violation did not constitute a deceptive practice within the meaning of General Business Law 349.  Schlessinger…v Valspar Corporation, No 66, CtApp, 5-30-13

 

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