KOCH v. ACKER, MERRALL & CONDIT COMPANY No. 117 SSM 13.
18 N.Y.3d 940 (2012)
967 N.E.2d 675
944 N.Y.S.2d 452
2012 NY Slip Op 2254
WILLIAM I. KOCH, Appellant, v. ACKER, MERRALL & CONDIT COMPANY, Respondent.
Court of Appeals of New York.
Decided March 27, 2012.
Hunton & Williams LLP, New York City ( and Joseph J. Saltarelli, Shawn Patrick Regan of counsel), and Jennifer L. Cummins Irell & Manella LLP, Newport Beach, California ( and Bruce A. Wessel, John Hueston of counsel), for appellant. Moez M. Kaba
Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York City ( and Stephen B. Meister, Thomas L. Friedman of counsel), for respondent. Remy J. Stocks
and Theodore Hadzi-Antich Sacramento, California, for Pacific Legal Foundation, amicus curiae. Deborah J. La Fetra,
Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum; Judge SMITH taking no part.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The judgment of Supreme Court appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be reversed, with costs, and defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 causes of action denied. To successfully assert a claim under General Business Law § 349 (h) or § 350, "a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice" (City of New York v Smokes-Spirits.Com, Inc.,
To the extent that the Appellate Division order imposed a reliance requirement on General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 claims, it was error. Justifiable reliance by the plaintiff is not an element of the statutory claim (see Small v Lorillard Tobacco
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), judgment appealed from and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review reversed, etc.
- No Cases Found