Koch v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co.

• Decision Date: 27 March 2012
• Parties: William I. KOCH, Appellant, v. ACKER, MERRALL & CONDIT COMPANY, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

18 N.Y.3d 940
967 N.E.2d 675
944 N.Y.S.2d 452
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 02254

William I. KOCH, Appellant,
v.
ACKER, MERRALL & CONDIT COMPANY, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

March 27, 2012.

Hunton & Williams LLP, New York City (Joseph J. Saltarelli, Shawn Patrick Regan and Jennifer L. Cummins of counsel), for appellant.

Meister Seelig & Fein LLP, New York City (Stephen B. Meister, Thomas L. Friedman and Remy J. Stocks of counsel), for respondent.

Theodore Hadzi–Antich and Deborah J. La Fetra, Sacramento, CA, for Pacific Legal Foundation, amicus curiae.

[18 N.Y.3d 941]OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.

[967 N.E.2d 675][1] 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., 12 N.Y.3d 616, 621, 883 N.Y.S.2d 772, 911 N.E.2d 834 [2009];see [967 N.E.2d 676]

[944 N.Y.S.2d 453]

Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y, 98 N.Y.2d 314, 324 n. 1, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190 [2002] ). Here, plaintiff sufficiently pleaded such causes of action, and the disclaimers set forth in defendant's catalogs “ do not ... bar [plaintiffs] claims for deceptive trade practices at this stage of the proceedings, as they do not establish a defense as a matter of law” ( Goshen, 98 N.Y.2d at 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190;see Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 94 N.Y.2d 330, 345, 704 N.Y.S.2d 177, 725 N.E.2d 598 [1999] ).

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 [18 N.Y.3d 942]Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 55, 698 N.Y.S.2d 615, 720 N.E.2d 892 [1999], citing Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Midland Bank, 85 N.Y.2d 20, 26, 623 N.Y.S.2d 529, 647 N.E.2d 741 [1995] ).

Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum; Judge SMITH taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of...