N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER General Business / ARTICLE Franchises
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. General Business Law § 680 (2026)

Legislative findings and declaration of policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 680. Legislative findings and declaration of policy. 1. The
legislature hereby finds and declares that the widespread sale of
franchises is a relatively new form of business which has created
numerous problems in New York.  New York residents have suffered
substantial losses where the franchisor or his representative has not
provided full and complete information regarding the
franchisor-franchisee relationship, the details of the contract between
the franchisor and franchisee, the prior business experience of the
franchisor, and other factors relevant to the franchise offered for
sale.
  2. It is hereby determined and declared that the offer and sale of
franchises, as defined in this article, is a matter affected with a
public interest and subject to the supervision of the state, for the
purpose of providing prospective franchisees and potential franchise
investors with material details of the franchise offering so that they
may participate in the franchise system in a manner that may avoid
detriment to the public interest and benefit the commerce and industry
of the state. Further, it is the intent of this law to prohibit the sale
of franchises where such sale would lead to fraud or a likelihood that
the franchisor's promises would not be fulfilled.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: A.J. Temple Marble & Tile, Inc. v. Union Carbide Marble Care, Inc., 663 N.E.2d 890 (N.Y. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
A.J. Temple Marble & Tile, Inc. v. Union Carbide Marble Care, Inc., 663 N.E.2d 890 (N.Y. 1996). · cites it 4× “The Franchise Sales Act (General Business Law §§ 680-695) was enacted in 1980 to combat abuses that had accompanied the growth of the franchising industry and had resulted in substantial losses to New York residents (Sponsor's Mem, 1980 NY Legis Ann, at 286; Mem of Assembly…”
Emfore Corp. v. Blimpie Assocs., Ltd., 51 A.D.3d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 2008). “from as limited by the briefs, upon the grant of reargument, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for summary judgment dismissing certain affirmative defenses, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent…”
A.J. Temple Marble & Tile, Inc. v. Union Carbide Marble Care, Inc., 162 Misc. 2d 941 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× “Defendants move, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), (5) and (7), to dismiss those portions of the complaint (first and second causes of action) alleging violations of the New York Franchise Sales Act (General Business Law § 680 et seq.; the Franchise Act), based upon: (a)…”
Burgers Bar Five Towns, LLC v. Burger Holdings Corp., 71 A.D.3d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2010). · cites it 2× “In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of the Franchise Sales Act (General Business Law § 680 et seq.), the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.”
Retail Software Servs., Inc. v. Lashlee, 525 N.E.2d 737 (N.Y. 1988). “Plaintiff claimed that, by reason of these misrepresentations, defendants had violated New York’s Franchise Sales Act (General Business Law § 680 et. seq.). The United States District Court granted the motions of Janeski and Fick to dismiss the complaint as against them for want…”
Jung Hing Leung v. Lotus Ride, Inc., 198 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep't 1993). “Immergut and Raymond Tsang, dismissing the second, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth causes of action in their entirety, and dismissing the first and third causes of action insofar as damages and rescission for fraud and violation of the Franchise Sales Act *156 (General…”
Colt Indus., Inc. v. Fidelco Pump & Compressor Corp., 700 F. Supp. 1330 (D.N.J. 1987). “See N.Y. General Business Law §§ 680 to 695 (McKinney 1984 and 1987 Cum.”
Fantastic Enter., Inc. v. S.M.R. Enter., Inc., 143 Misc. 2d 124 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1988). “The first cause of action alleges defendants committed fraud, fraudulent practices, deceit, and engaged in fraudulent and unlawful practices, all as defined by the Franchise Sales Act (General Business Law § 680 et seq.). Plaintiffs contend that the offering prospectus for the…”
State v. Danny's Franchise Sys., Inc., 131 A.D.2d 746 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1987). “The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in numerous instances of misconduct which were in violation of the Franchise Sales Act (General Business Law § 680 et seq.) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (13 NYCRR part 200).”
Bayit Care Corp. v. Tender Loving Care Health Care Servs. of Nassau Suffolk, LLC, 843 F. Supp. 2d 381 (E.D.N.Y 2012). “) In the Fourth Cause of Action, which is at issue in the present motion, Bayit alleges that Tender Loving violated New York’s Franchise Sales Act, N.Y. General Business Law § 680 et. seq. (“FSA”), by failing to provide Bayit with a “Franchise Disclosure Document” or “Uniform…”
Lercara Provisions, Inc. v. Boar's Head Provisions Co., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op 00884 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2026). “ations of the Labor Law (first through fourth causes of action), tortious interference with contract (fifth cause of action), breach of contract (sixth and seventh causes of action), fraudulent inducement (eighth cause of action), economic duress (ninth cause of action), unfair…”
TKO Fleet Enter., Inc. v. Elite Limousine Plus, Inc., 184 Misc. 2d 460 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000). “(General Business Law § 680 et seq.) Defendants assert that TKO is precluded from suing upon its contracts with Shahid and Khan because it has violated General Business Law § 683 (1), which states: “[i]t shall be unlawful and prohibited for any person to offer to sell or sell in…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.