Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New York opinions name it 3 courts 2007–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Maple House, Inc. v. Alfred F. Cypes & Co.green2 sentences2012Under-reporting the purchase price is not actionable under General Business Law § 349, as it was not predicated upon an act or practice that was misleading in a material way, or an act or practice that was consumer oriented (see Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d at 25 ; Maple House, Inc. v Alfred F. Cypes & Co., Inc., 80 AD3d 672, 673 [2011]). 2012Under-reporting the purchase price is not actionable under General Business Law § 349, as it was not predicated upon an act or practice that was misleading in a material way, or an act or practice that was consumer oriented (see Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d at 25 ; Maple House, Inc. v Alfred F. Cypes & Co., Inc., 80 AD3d 672, 673 [2011]). | 2 | 2 |
Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.green2 sentences2012Under-reporting the purchase price is not actionable under General Business Law § 349, as it was not predicated upon an act or practice that was misleading in a material way, or an act or practice that was consumer oriented (see Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d at 25 ; Maple House, Inc. v Alfred F. Cypes & Co., Inc., 80 AD3d 672, 673 [2011]). 2012Under-reporting the purchase price is not actionable under General Business Law § 349, as it was not predicated upon an act or practice that was misleading in a material way, or an act or practice that was consumer oriented (see Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d at 25 ; Maple House, Inc. v Alfred F. Cypes & Co., Inc., 80 AD3d 672, 673 [2011]). | 1 | 3 |
Verizon Directories Corp. v. Yellow Book USA, Inc.green1 sentence2007Defendant further notes that there is no published decision construing the term “exaggeration” as concerns section 20-701 of the Administrative Code, and argues that “puffery,” defined as “exaggeration or overstatement expressed in broad, vague, and commendatory language,” “a general claim of superiority over comparable products that is so vague that it can be understood as nothing more than a mere expression of opinion,” and an “exaggerated, blustering, and boasting statement upon which no reasonable buyer would rely” is not actionable under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 (defendant’s me | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gaidon v. Guardian Life Insurance of America
green
1 sentence2018In Gaidon II the Court explained its prior decision in Gaidon I held that because the promotional illustrations used in selling the offending premium policies contained disclaimers, the misrepresentations in those materials and by the agents did not constitute common-law fraud, but might be actionable under General Business Law § 349 ( 96 NY2d at 209 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Blue Cross & Blue Shield of New Jersey, Inc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc.
green
2 sentences2009In rendering this decision, we noted the lack of any clear indication from the Legislature that derivative injuries were actionable under section 349 (h) (see id. at 206-207 ), our concern with expanding section 349 to permit “ ‘a tidal wave of litigation against businesses that was not intended by the Legislature’ ” (see id. at 207 , quoting Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 26 [1995]), and that our holding was “in accord with several other courts that recognize a remoteness bar to recovery under their state consumer protection statutes” (see id. at 20 2009In rendering this decision, we noted the lack of any clear indication from the Legislature that derivative injuries were actionable under section 349 (h) (see id. at 206-207 ), our concern with expanding section 349 to permit “ ‘a tidal wave of litigation against businesses that was not intended by the Legislature’ ” (see id. at 207 , quoting Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 26 [1995]), and that our holding was “in accord with several other courts that recognize a remoteness bar to recovery under their state consumer protection statutes” (see id. at 20 | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.