green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
13.0 score
“plaintiffs' allegations that microsoft's deceptive practices caused them to pay artificially inflated prices for its products state a cause of action for unjust enrichment.”
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Greene v. Gerber Products Co.
plaintiffs' allegations that microsoft's deceptive practices caused them to pay artificially inflated prices for its products state a cause of action for unjust enrichment.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pires v. Bowery Presents, LLC
(Cox v Microsoft Corp., 8 AD3d 39, 40 [1st Dept 2004]; Downing v First Lenox Terrace Assoc., 107 AD3d 86 , 91 [1st Dept 2013]; Pesantez v Boyle Envtl.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lazaroff v. Paraco Gas Corp.
The plaintiff also alleged a valid cause of action to recover damages for unjust enrichment (see Cox v Microsoft Corp., 8 AD3d 39, 40 [2004]; Waldman v New Ch., Inc., 714 F Supp 2d at 400, 404-405 ; Watts v Jackson Hewitt Tax Serv.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Georgia Malone & Co. v. Rieder
(2×)
Cox v Microsoft Corp., 8 AD3d 39, 40 [2004]), while another line of cases in this Department held that the parties needed to be in direct privity with one another to plead unjust enrichment (see e.g.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Silver Oak Capital L.L.C. v. UBS AG
Plaintiffs’ allegations that the placement fee paid to Securities via Financial was taken directly from the funds they invested are sufficient to state a cause of action for unjust enrichment as against Securities and Financial (see Cox v Microsoft Corp., 8 AD3d 39, 40 [2004]; Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v Chemical Bank, 160 AD2d 113, 117 [1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 803 [1991]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein
Accepting, as we must, the allegations of the complaint as true, defendants fostered the impression that the Gauguin was worth much more than its actual value, causing plaintiff to overpay and thereby impairing the value it received (see Cox v Microsoft Corp., 8 AD3d 39, 40 [2004] [“plaintiffs’ allegations that Microsoft’s deceptive practices caused them to pay artificially inflated prices for its products state a cause of action for unjust enrichment”]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Globe Surgical Supply v. GEICO Insurance
(2×)
As to the third category of actions, however, if only actual damages are sought, a court may certify a class in actions asserting a violation of General Business Law § 349 (see e.g., Cox v Microsoft Corp., 8 AD3d 39, 40 [2004]; Ridge Meadows Homeowners’ Assn, v Tara Dev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sperry v. Crompton Corp.
We decline to follow the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, in Cox v Microsoft Corp. ( 8 AD3d 39, 40 [2004]), which dispenses with the requirement of privity for a claim sounding in unjust enrichment.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Paltre v. General Motors Corp.
Co. of Am., 94 NY2d 330, 344 [1999]; Cox v Microsoft Corp., 8 AD3d 39, 40 [2004]; McGill v General Motors Corp., 231 AD2d 449 [1996]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jacobs v. Macy's East, Inc.
Place Corp., 224 FRD 330, 341 [2004]; Ansoumana v Gristede’s Operating Corp., 201 FRD 81, 95 [2001]; Brzychnalski v Unesco, Inc., 35 F Supp 2d 351, 353 [1999]; Cox v Microsoft Corp., 8 AD3d 39, 40 [2004]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Moss v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.
See, e.g., Cox, 8 A.D.3d at 40-41 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 147 ; Bildstein v. MasterCard International, Inc., 03-CV-9826I (WHP), 2005 WL 1324972 , *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (credit card user,stated unjust enrichment claim against MasterCard, despite receiving card through an issuing bank).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Propranolol Antitrust Litigation
See, e.g., Cox v. Microsoft Corp., 8 A.D.3d 39, 40 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 147 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser & Antitrust Consumer Litigation
See, e.g., In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litig., 29 F.Supp.3d 982, 1010 (E.D.Mich. 2014) (Plaintiffs stated § 349 claim by alleging that “Defendants took efforts to conceal” their anticompetitive agreement) (citing Cox v. Microsoft Corp., 8 A.D.3d 39 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 147, 148 (2004)); In re Dynamic Random Access Memory Antitrust Litig., 536 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1143-44 (N.D.Cal.2008) (Plaintiffs stated § 349 claim by alleging that “defendants secretly agreed to raise prices” on New York consumers); Microsoft, 778 N.Y.S.2d at 148 (Plaintiffs stated claim for § 349 violation where defenda…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Fenerjian v. Nongshim Co.
See, e.g., Cox, 8 A.D.3d at 41 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 147 (noting that Microsoft’s "prime customers” were computer manufacturers and distributors, not the plaintiffs).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hughes v. Ester C Co.
June 23, 2006); see also Cox v. Microsoft Corp., 8 A.D.3d 39 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 147, 149 (2004) (finding plaintiffs’ allegations that defendant’s deceptive practices “caused them to pay artificially inflated prices for its products [sufficient for purposes of] staffing] a cause of action for unjust enrichment”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Burns v. Delaware Charter Guarantee & Trust Co.
June 23, 2006); see also Cox v. Microsoft Corp., 8 A.D.3d 39, 40-41 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 147 (1st Dept.2004).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Grund v. Delaware Charter Guarantee & Trust Co.
June 23, 2006); see also Cox v. Microsoft Corp., 8 A.D.3d 39, 40-41, 778 N.Y.S.2d 147 (1st Dept.2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation
See, e.g., Cox v. Microsoft Corp., 8 A.D.3d 39, 40-41 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 147 (App.Div.2004) (permitting indirect purchasers of software products to pursue unjust enrichment claims to recoup overcharges); Mfrs.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation
(2×)
See, e.g., Cox v. Microsoft Corp., 8 A.D.3d 39 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 147, 148-49 (N.Y.App.
The People of the State of New York
v.
Juan Correa
v.
Juan Correa
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 3, 2004.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. New York (1)
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered on or about July 24, 2002, unanimously affirmed.
Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (see Anders v California, 386 US 738 [1967]; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.
Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.
Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Friedman and Sweeny, JJ.