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.
14 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1968–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Citigroup Inc.green2 sentences2013Contrary to defendants’ assertion, the Donnelly Act claim was neither dismissed with prejudice nor barred by the prior federal action (Williams v Citigroup Inc., 659 F3d 208, 215 [2d Cir 2011] [vacating that portion of the district court’s judgment that dismissed the state law claims with prejudice]). 2013Contrary to defendants’ assertion, the Donnelly Act claim was neither dismissed with prejudice nor barred by the prior federal action (Williams v Citigroup Inc., 659 F3d 208, 215 [2d Cir 2011] [vacating that portion of the district court’s judgment that dismissed the state law claims with prejudice]). | 2 | 2 |
Guard-Life Corp. v. S. Parker Hardware Manufacturing Corp.green2 sentences2013Corp., 50 NY2d 183, 193-194 [1980]). 2013Corp., 50 NY2d 183, 193-194 [1980]). | 2 | 2 |
Global Reinsurance Corporation-U.S. Branch v. Equitas Ltd.green2 sentences2012Given the new allegations that there was a worldwide market for retrocessional non-life coverage, and the absence of any allegation that the coverage available in the Lloyd’s marketplace could not be acquired elsewhere on competitive terms, the court concluded that Lloyd’s was not a viable submarket and on that ground dismissed the Donnelly Act claim, since an assertion of market power adequate to sustain a claim for restraint of trade may only be demonstrated within the context of an identified relevant market or submarket ( 24 Misc 3d 264, 273-274 [Sup Ct, NY County 2009]). 6 On plaintiffs a 2012Given the new allegations that there was a worldwide market for retrocessional non-life coverage, and the absence of any allegation that the coverage available in the Lloyd’s marketplace could not be acquired elsewhere on competitive terms, the court concluded that Lloyd’s was not a viable submarket and on that ground dismissed the Donnelly Act claim, since an assertion of market power adequate to sustain a claim for restraint of trade may only be demonstrated within the context of an identified relevant market or submarket ( 24 Misc 3d 264, 273-274 [Sup Ct, NY County 2009]). 6 On plaintiffs a | 1 | 1 |
Creative Trading Co. v. Larkin-Pluznick-Larkin, Inc.green2 sentences2012Creative Trading Co. v Larkin-Pluznick-Larkin, Inc., 136 AD2d 461, 462 [1st Dept 1988]), there do not appear to be any cases from our Court. 2012Creative Trading Co. v Larkin-Pluznick-Larkin, Inc., 136 AD2d 461, 462 [1st Dept 1988]), there do not appear to be any cases from our Court. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coventry First LLCgreen1 sentence2011The Donnelly Act is intended to apply to conduct “alleged to have a significant intrastate or local anticompetitive impact in violation of State antitrust law with minimal interstate consequences” (Two Queens v Scoza, 296 AD2d 302 , 304 [2002] [emphasis added]; H-Quotient, Inc. v Knight Trading Group, Inc., 2005 WL 323750 , *4, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 1924 , *12-13 [SD NY 2005]; see also People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 345 [2008] [Donnelly Act claim properly dismissed to the extent that defendants’ alleged conduct did not take place “in this state”], affd 13 NY3d 108 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Coventry First LLCgreen1 sentence2011The Donnelly Act is intended to apply to conduct “alleged to have a significant intrastate or local anticompetitive impact in violation of State antitrust law with minimal interstate consequences” (Two Queens v Scoza, 296 AD2d 302 , 304 [2002] [emphasis added]; H-Quotient, Inc. v Knight Trading Group, Inc., 2005 WL 323750 , *4, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 1924 , *12-13 [SD NY 2005]; see also People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 345 [2008] [Donnelly Act claim properly dismissed to the extent that defendants’ alleged conduct did not take place “in this state”], affd 13 NY3d 108 [2009]). | 1 | 1 |
Goshen v. Mutual Life Insurancegreen2 sentences2008Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 324-325 [2002]), as was the Martin Act claim with respect to alleged conduct not “within or from this state” (see General Business Law § 352-c [1]), and to the extent that it pertained to variable annuity policies already subject to regulation by the Department of Insurance (see Meagher v Metropolitan Life Ins. 2008Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 324-325 [2002]), as was the Martin Act claim with respect to alleged conduct not “within or from this state” (see General Business Law § 352-c [1]), and to the extent that it pertained to variable annuity policies already subject to regulation by the Department of Insurance (see Meagher v Metropolitan Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Van Dussen-Storto Motor Inn, Inc. v. Rochester Telephone Corp.green1 sentence2006Corp., 63 AD2d 244, 252 [1978]). | 1 | 1 |
Constant v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.green1 sentence2006Funeral Home, 234 AD2d 538, 538 [1996] [“the plaintiffs contention that he was precluded from purchasing an interest in one of the few existing funeral parlor businesses within Northern Westchester County does not adequately allege impairment of competition within a relevant market or show how the economic impact of the alleged conspiracy restrains trade in the market”]; Constant v Hallmark Cards, 172 AD2d 641, 642 [1991] [Donnelly Act claim based on franchisor’s refusal to approve franchisee’s sale of interest in store properly dismissed because “plaintiffs have not only failed to show how th | 1 | 1 |
Sands v. Ticketmaster-New York, Inc.green2 sentences2006Accordingly, a restraint-of-trade Donnelly Act violation can only occur when the alleged “conspirators” are in competition with one another or with the plaintiff (see Sands v Ticketmaster-N.Y., Inc., 207 AD2d 687, 688 [1994] [a Donnelly Act claim is not stated where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant ticket vendor preferred certain promoters of tickets since “defendant and the Venues’ which it deals with, such as theatres, stadiums, arenas and promoters, are in the respective positions of agent and principal, not competitors”]). 2006Accordingly, a restraint-of-trade Donnelly Act violation can only occur when the alleged “conspirators” are in competition with one another or with the plaintiff (see Sands v Ticketmaster-N.Y., Inc., 207 AD2d 687, 688 [1994] [a Donnelly Act claim is not stated where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant ticket vendor preferred certain promoters of tickets since “defendant and the Venues’ which it deals with, such as theatres, stadiums, arenas and promoters, are in the respective positions of agent and principal, not competitors”]). | 1 | 1 |
Watts v. Clark Associates Funeral Home, Inc.green1 sentence2006Funeral Home, 234 AD2d 538, 538 [1996] [“the plaintiffs contention that he was precluded from purchasing an interest in one of the few existing funeral parlor businesses within Northern Westchester County does not adequately allege impairment of competition within a relevant market or show how the economic impact of the alleged conspiracy restrains trade in the market”]; Constant v Hallmark Cards, 172 AD2d 641, 642 [1991] [Donnelly Act claim based on franchisor’s refusal to approve franchisee’s sale of interest in store properly dismissed because “plaintiffs have not only failed to show how th | 1 | 1 |
Stan Winston Creatures, Inc. v. Toys\ R\" USgreen1 sentence2006While the court considered preemption in the context of a motion for removal to federal district court, which is not an adjudication of the merits of a claim (Stan Winston Creatures, Inc. v Toys “R” Us, Inc., 314 F Supp 2d 177, 182 [SD NY 2003]), a finding in the plaintiffs favor would not have affected the uniformity of its rates, terms or conditions of service under its agreement with the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
Hbe Leasing Corporation v. Frankgreen2 sentences2005Miller contends that, by virtue of Justice Lunn’s decision in 1997, it “is entitled to a motion in limine prohibiting [Stark] from introducing any evidence, or argument, the purpose of which is to explain away its response to interrogatory No. 18 (c).” Miller further contends, citing HBE Leasing Corp. v Frank ( 22 F3d 41, 46 [2d Cir 1994]), that it is improper to inform a jury that damages for a Donnelly Act violation are trebled and thus “[Stark], or its attorneys . . . [should be precluded] from making any such reference during the course of the trial.” Finally, Miller contends that, notwith 2005Miller contends that, by virtue of Justice Lunn’s decision in 1997, it “is entitled to a motion in limine prohibiting [Stark] from introducing any evidence, or argument, the purpose of which is to explain away its response to interrogatory No. 18 (c).” Miller further contends, citing HBE Leasing Corp. v Frank ( 22 F3d 41, 46 [2d Cir 1994]), that it is improper to inform a jury that damages for a Donnelly Act violation are trebled and thus “[Stark], or its attorneys . . . [should be precluded] from making any such reference during the course of the trial.” Finally, Miller contends that, notwith | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Taxi Tours Inc. v. Go N.Y. Tours, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2024The Appellate Division affirmed on the ground that Go New York failed to allege sufficient facts in support of its Donnelly Act claim and the “wrongful means” underlying its tortious interference counterclaim was nothing more than the insufficient allegations of a Donnelly Act violation ( 210 AD3d 451 [1st Dept 2022]). 2024The Appellate Division affirmed on the ground that Go New York failed to allege sufficient facts in support of its Donnelly Act claim and the “wrongful means” underlying its tortious interference counterclaim was nothing more than the insufficient allegations of a Donnelly Act violation ( 210 AD3d 451 [1st Dept 2022]). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Linett v. Budget Rent-A-Car
green
1 sentence2011The Donnelly Act is intended to apply to conduct “alleged to have a significant intrastate or local anticompetitive impact in violation of State antitrust law with minimal interstate consequences” (Two Queens v Scoza, 296 AD2d 302 , 304 [2002] [emphasis added]; H-Quotient, Inc. v Knight Trading Group, Inc., 2005 WL 323750 , *4, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 1924 , *12-13 [SD NY 2005]; see also People v Coventry First LLC, 52 AD3d 345, 345 [2008] [Donnelly Act claim properly dismissed to the extent that defendants’ alleged conduct did not take place “in this state”], affd 13 NY3d 108 [2009]). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Detko v. McDonald's Restaurants of New York, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997Although six years of disclosure activity has not revealed any evidence against Fuji and S&W on the fourth cause of action, sufficient cause exists to grant Fuji’s motion (see, Detko v McDonald’s Rests., 198 AD2d 208, 209 , lv denied 83 NY2d 752 ). 1997Although six years of disclosure activity has not revealed any evidence against Fuji and S&W on the fourth cause of action, sufficient cause exists to grant Fuji’s motion (see, Detko v McDonald’s Rests., 198 AD2d 208, 209 , lv denied 83 NY2d 752 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tymon v. Linoki
green
2 sentences1994This situation is not present herein, where defendant and the "venues” which it deals with, such as theatres, stadiums, arenas and promoters, are in the respective positions of agent and principal, not competitors (see, Fuchs Sugars & Syrups v Amstar Corp., 602 F2d 1025, 1031, cert denied 444 US 917 ; Dawn to Dusk v Brunckhorst Co., 23 AD2d 780, 781 ). 1994This situation is not present herein, where defendant and the "venues” which it deals with, such as theatres, stadiums, arenas and promoters, are in the respective positions of agent and principal, not competitors (see, Fuchs Sugars & Syrups v Amstar Corp., 602 F2d 1025, 1031, cert denied 444 US 917 ; Dawn to Dusk v Brunckhorst Co., 23 AD2d 780, 781 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Yono v. Columbus Landings, Ltd.
green
2 sentences1994This situation is not present herein, where defendant and the "venues” which it deals with, such as theatres, stadiums, arenas and promoters, are in the respective positions of agent and principal, not competitors (see, Fuchs Sugars & Syrups v Amstar Corp., 602 F2d 1025, 1031, cert denied 444 US 917 ; Dawn to Dusk v Brunckhorst Co., 23 AD2d 780, 781 ). 1994This situation is not present herein, where defendant and the "venues” which it deals with, such as theatres, stadiums, arenas and promoters, are in the respective positions of agent and principal, not competitors (see, Fuchs Sugars & Syrups v Amstar Corp., 602 F2d 1025, 1031, cert denied 444 US 917 ; Dawn to Dusk v Brunckhorst Co., 23 AD2d 780, 781 ). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kaplan v. Shell Oil Co.
neutral
2 sentences1992Further plaintiff has failed to make a showing of State action such as would warrant a due process claim (Blum v Yaretsky, 457 US 991 ; Matter of Smallwood v Warren, 50 AD2d 598 ) or of a contract combination or conspiracy among independent entities engaged in commercial or business pursuits that caused a competitive injury in a relevant market within this State such as to support a Donnelly Act claim (see, e.g., Associates Capital Servs. 1992Further plaintiff has failed to make a showing of State action such as would warrant a due process claim (Blum v Yaretsky, 457 US 991 ; Matter of Smallwood v Warren, 50 AD2d 598 ) or of a contract combination or conspiracy among independent entities engaged in commercial or business pursuits that caused a competitive injury in a relevant market within this State such as to support a Donnelly Act claim (see, e.g., Associates Capital Servs. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Assocs. Capital Servs. Corp. v. Fairway Private Cars, Inc.
green
2 sentences1992Corp. v Fairway Private Cars, 590 F Supp 10, 13 ; Primo Constr. v Swig Weiler & Arnow Mgt. 1992Corp. v Fairway Private Cars, 590 F Supp 10, 13 ; Primo Constr. v Swig Weiler & Arnow Mgt. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Blum v. Yaretsky
green
2 sentences1992Further plaintiff has failed to make a showing of State action such as would warrant a due process claim (Blum v Yaretsky, 457 US 991 ; Matter of Smallwood v Warren, 50 AD2d 598 ) or of a contract combination or conspiracy among independent entities engaged in commercial or business pursuits that caused a competitive injury in a relevant market within this State such as to support a Donnelly Act claim (see, e.g., Associates Capital Servs. 1992Further plaintiff has failed to make a showing of State action such as would warrant a due process claim (Blum v Yaretsky, 457 US 991 ; Matter of Smallwood v Warren, 50 AD2d 598 ) or of a contract combination or conspiracy among independent entities engaged in commercial or business pursuits that caused a competitive injury in a relevant market within this State such as to support a Donnelly Act claim (see, e.g., Associates Capital Servs. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Sarkisian
green
1 sentence1989Co. v Sarkisian, 139 AD2d 27, 29 ). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.
green
1 sentence1968(Continental Co. v. Union Carbide, 370 U. S. 690 ; Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.