Liechtung v. Tower Air, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 February 2000 |
| Parties | STEVEN LIECHTUNG, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>TOWER AIR, INC., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff purchased a ticket from Tower Air to fly nonstop from New York's Kennedy Airport to Tel Aviv. After he had boarded the plane, the flight crew announced that the plane would make an unscheduled stop in Paris for refueling purposes. Allegedly, during the stop the passengers on the plane were not permitted to deplane, and remained on the plane for at least two hours. The plaintiff commenced this action on behalf of himself and all other passengers who had purchased tickets for Tower Air flights traveling to or from New York and Tel Aviv since June 1994, the time when that airline began to promote and sell non-stop tickets for flights which were intended to proceed directly to their destination.
The determination to grant class action certification is one resting in the sound discretion of the trial court (see, CPLR 901 [a]; Lauer v New York Tel. Co., 231 AD2d 126, 130). Generally, CPLR article 9 is to be liberally construed and any error should be resolved in favor of allowing the class action (see, Lauer v New York Tel. Co., supra, at 130; Pruitt v Rockefeller Ctr. Props., 167 AD2d 14, 21; Friar v Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 AD2d 83). In the present case, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the plaintiff satisfied all of the requisite criteria detailed in CPLR 901 (a). Common questions of law and fact with respect to the issue of Tower Air's liability in making the representation of non-stop service are substantial and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class (see, Friar v Vanguard Holding Corp., supra, at 96-100). Furthermore, contrary to Tower Air's contention, the plaintiff provided sufficient information to show that he and his counsel could adequately protect the interests of the class (see, Pruitt v Rockefeller Ctr. Props., supra, at 25).
Tower Air's remaining contentions are either raised for the first time on appeal or are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dugan ex rel. All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. London Terrace Gardens, L.P.
...“in favor of allowing the class action.” Pruitt v. Rockefeller Ctr. Props., 167 A.D.2d at 21, 574 N.Y.S.2d 672;Liechtung v. Tower Air, 269 A.D.2d 363, 364, 702 N.Y.S.2d 111 (2d Dep't 2000); Brown v. State, 250 A.D.2d 314, 320, 681 N.Y.S.2d 170 (3d Dep't 1998). See Englade v. HarperCollins P......
-
Hurrell-Harring v. State
...omitted]; accord.914 N.Y.S.2d 370Lauer v. New York Tel. Co., 231 A.D.2d 126, 130, 659 N.Y.S.2d 359 [1997]; see Liechtung v. Tower Air, 269 A.D.2d 363, 364, 702 N.Y.S.2d 111 [2000]; Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 A.D.2d 83, 91, 434 N.Y.S.2d 698 [1980] ). Furthermore, while the determina......
-
Smilewicz v. Sears Roebuck and Co.
...Mgt. Corp., 59 A.D.3d 584, 872 N.Y.S.2d 722; Kidd v. Delta Funding Corp., 289 A.D.2d 203, 734 N.Y.S.2d 848; Liechtung v. Tower Air, 269 A.D.2d 363, 702 N.Y.S.2d 111; Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 A.D.2d 83, 91, 434 N.Y.S.2d 698). "The determination to grant class action certification ......
-
Carni ex rel. Situated v. Cont'l Home Loans, Inc.
...and whether each factor has been established rests within the sound discretion of the trial court ( Liechtung v. Tower Air, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 363, 702 N.Y.S.2d 111 [2d Dept.2000];see also Alix v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 1044, 868 N.Y.S.2d 372 [3d Dept.2008] ). Furthermore, in determ......
-
Chapter § 5.03 FALSE, MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING IN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY
...(Ind. App. 1989) (misrepresentations over flight delay). New York: Liechtung v. Tower Air, New York Law Journal, January 11, 1999, aff'd 269 A.D.2d 363, 702 N.Y.S.2d 111 (2000) (flight misrepresented as non-stop between New York and Israel made two hour stopover in Paris); Sporn v. Metro In......
-
New York State class actions: make it work - fulfill the promise.
...Dep't 2001) (certifying class of authors alleging breach of contract by publisher); Liechtung v. Tower Air, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 362, 364, 702 N.Y.S.2d 111, 112 (App. Div. 2d Dep't 2000) (affirming class certification of airline passengers seeking damages for airline's refusal to deplane during......
-
Chapter § 6.01 THE IMPACT OF CLASS ACTIONS
...food, water, clean air and toilet facilities" are preempted by the ADA; class action complaint dismissed); Liechtung v. Tower Air, Inc., 269 A.D.2d 363, 702 N.Y.S.2d 111 (2000) (2-hour flight delay; flight misrepresented as non-stop made unscheduled stop in Paris for refueling; class certif......