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 2003–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.green2 sentences2009(Oswego Laborers’ Local, 85 NY2d at 26, 27 .) Although a plaintiff need not establish reliance on a defendant’s deceptive act to establish liability under General Business Law § 349, the plaintiff must still demonstrate that he or she suffered an “actual injury” as a result of the deceptive conduct. 2004The liability inquiry under General Business Law § 349 is whether defendant "is engaging in an act or practice that is deceptive or misleading in a material way and [ ] plaintiff has been injured by reason thereof." ( Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A. , 85 NY2d 20, 25 , [1995]). | 1 | 2 |
Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.green1 sentence2011On one hand, intent to defraud by Progressive and justifiable reliance by the plaintiff are not required (Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43, 55 [1999]; Wilner v Allstate Ins. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Princess Prestige Co.green1 sentence2009Corp., 128 Misc 2d 767, 773 [Sup Ct, NY County 1985]; see generally Princess Prestige, 42 NY2d at 107 [the Attorney General “is not required to establish a large percentage of violations”]). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Solil Management Corp.green1 sentence2009Corp., 128 Misc 2d 767, 773 [Sup Ct, NY County 1985]; see generally Princess Prestige, 42 NY2d at 107 [the Attorney General “is not required to establish a large percentage of violations”]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. 21st Century Leisure Spa International Ltd.green1 sentence2009The court thus concludes that there were five demonstrated instances in which supposedly successful consumers were entitled but failed to receive the benefit of the guarantee. 3 ****8 The court additionally concludes that, given respondents’ pattern of misleading consumers and exaggerating their savings, those multiple instances of not abiding by the guarantee suffice to demonstrate respondents’ repeated and persistent acts of deception aimed at consumers generally, as required in order to give rise to liability under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and Executive Law § 63 (12) (see People | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wolowitzgreen1 sentence2009The court thus concludes that there were five demonstrated instances in which supposedly successful consumers were entitled but failed to receive the benefit of the guarantee. 3 ****8 The court additionally concludes that, given respondents’ pattern of misleading consumers and exaggerating their savings, those multiple instances of not abiding by the guarantee suffice to demonstrate respondents’ repeated and persistent acts of deception aimed at consumers generally, as required in order to give rise to liability under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and Executive Law § 63 (12) (see People | 1 | 1 |
American Bank & Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlantagreen1 sentence2003The cause of action to recover damages based on prima facie tort should have been dismissed for failure to allege special damages with sufficient specificity (see Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135, 143 [1985]) and failing to allege that the sole motivation for the conduct charged was “ ‘disinterested malevolence’ ” (Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 333 [1983], quoting American Bank & Trust Co. v Federal Reserve Bank, 256 US 350, 358 [1921]; Morrell v Gorenkoff, 278 AD2d 210 [2000]; see SRW Assoc. v Bellport Beach Prop. | 1 | 1 |
Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v. Lindnergreen1 sentence2003The cause of action to recover damages based on prima facie tort should have been dismissed for failure to allege special damages with sufficient specificity (see Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135, 143 [1985]) and failing to allege that the sole motivation for the conduct charged was “ ‘disinterested malevolence’ ” (Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 333 [1983], quoting American Bank & Trust Co. v Federal Reserve Bank, 256 US 350, 358 [1921]; Morrell v Gorenkoff, 278 AD2d 210 [2000]; see SRW Assoc. v Bellport Beach Prop. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morrell v. Gorenkoff
green
1 sentence2003The cause of action to recover damages based on prima facie tort should have been dismissed for failure to allege special damages with sufficient specificity (see Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135, 143 [1985]) and failing to allege that the sole motivation for the conduct charged was “ ‘disinterested malevolence’ ” (Burns Jackson Miller Summit & Spitzer v Lindner, 59 NY2d 314, 333 [1983], quoting American Bank & Trust Co. v Federal Reserve Bank, 256 US 350, 358 [1921]; Morrell v Gorenkoff, 278 AD2d 210 [2000]; see SRW Assoc. v Bellport Beach Prop. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.