Ovitz v. Bloomberg L.P.

• Decision Date: 21 October 2010
• Citation: 77 A.D.3d 515,909 N.Y.S.2d 710
• Parties: Bruce OVITZ, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BLOOMBERG L.P., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

909 N.Y.S.2d 710

77 A.D.3d 515

Bruce OVITZ, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.BLOOMBERG L.P., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Oct. 21, 2010.

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York (Thomas H. Golden of counsel), for appellants.

Sperling & Slater, P.C., Chicago, IL (Greg Shinall, of the Illinois Bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent.

ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, McGUIRE, MOSKOWITZ, FREEDMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered October 7, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, denied so much of defendants' motion to dismiss the first, fifth and sixth causes of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted in its entirety, and the complaint dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

In this putative class action, accepting as true the facts alleged in the complaint ( see Leon v. Martinez, 84 N.Y.2d 83, 87-88, 614 N.Y.S.2d 972, 638 N.E.2d 511 [1994] ), we hold the automatic renewal provision of the agreement between plaintiff and defendants was both "inoperative"(General Obligations Law § 5-901) and "unenforceable" (§ 5-903), since defendants failed to provide the requisite notice to plaintiff that the two-year subscription term was to be automatically renewed ( see Guerrero v. West 23rd St. Realty, LLC, 45 A.D.3d 403, 846 N.Y.S.2d 41 [2007], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 707, 858 N.Y.S.2d 654, 888 N.E.2d 396 [2008]; Protection Indus. Corp. v. DDB Needham Worldwide, 306 A.D.2d 175, 763 N.Y.S.2d 546 [2003] ). As such, the agreement was never effectively renewed for a definite term and could have been canceled by plaintiff at any time ( see Concourse Nursing Home v. Axiom Funding Group, 279 A.D.2d 271, 719 N.Y.S.2d 19 [2001] ).

However, dismissal of the claims based on §§ 5-901 and 5-903 is warranted since plaintiff makes no allegations that he paid for services he did not receive ( see Ludl Elecs. Prods. v. Wells Fargo Fin. Leasing, 6 A.D.3d 397, 398, 775 N.Y.S.2d 59 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 603, 782 N.Y.S.2d 696, 816 N.E.2d 569 [2004]; Concourse Nursing Home v. Axiom Funding Group, 279 A.D.2d 271, 719 N.Y.S.2d 19, supra [although subject equipment leases were never renewed because lessor failed to comply with General Obligations Law § 5-901, lessee, who continued using the equipment after the leases terminated, was not entitled to recover rent for post-termination period] ). To the extent plaintiffseeks damages for defendants' alleged breach of these statutes, a private right of action is not expressly created by the language of the statutes and a legislative intent to create such a right of action is not fairly implied in the statutory provisions and their legislative history ( see e.g. Brian Hoxie's Painting Co. v. Cato-Meridian Cent. School Dist., 76 N.Y.2d 207, 211, 557 N.Y.S.2d 280, 556 N.E.2d 1087 [1990] ).

The complaint also fails to state a cause of action under General Business Law § 349. Plaintiff, a resident of Illinois, was not deceived in New York State ( see Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y....