Sharabani v. Simon Prop. Grp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Index No. 15224/09,2017–05348 |
| Citation | 186 A.D.3d 1278,131 N.Y.S.3d 22 |
| Parties | Leigh SHARABANI, etc., appellant, v. SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC., defendant, MetaBank, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Irwin Popkin, Melville, N.Y. (Bromberg Law Office, P.C. [Brian L. Bromberg ], and M. Scott Barrett of counsel), for appellant.
Bryan Cave LLP, New York, N.Y. (Christine Cesare, Megan Pierson, and Jonathan E. Ginsberg of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a putative class action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Timothy S. Driscoll, J.), entered April 18, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the breach of contract cause of action insofar as asserted against the defendant MetaBank, granted that branch of the cross motion of the defendant MetaBank which was for summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract cause of action insofar as asserted against it, and denied, as academic, the plaintiff's motion for class certification.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this putative class action alleging that, in May 2007, she received a gift card for her birthday, which was issued by the defendant MetaBank and marketed and promoted by the defendant Simon Property Group, Inc. The gift card had an initial balance of $40 and an expiration date of April 2009. The plaintiff used the gift card to make purchases in January 2008 and January 2009, leaving an available balance of $17.71. On or about July 22, 2009, the plaintiff attempted to make a purchase using the gift card, but she was advised that a $15 renewal fee would be assessed, leaving an available balance of $2.71, which would have been insufficient to pay for her intended purchase. The plaintiff did not renew the gift card.
In the amended complaint, the plaintiff asserted six causes of action. On a prior appeal, this Court determined that the Supreme Court had properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(2) to dismiss so much of the breach of contract cause of action as was premised on the Abandoned Property Law, but erred in granting dismissal of the remainder of that cause of action and the other causes of action asserted in the amended complaint as preempted by federal law. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a determination, on the merits, of the remaining branches of the defendants' motion (see Sharabani v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 96 A.D.3d 24, 31–33, 942 N.Y.S.2d 551 ).
Following the Supreme Court's determination upon remittitur, the plaintiff served a second amended complaint. The plaintiff thereafter simultaneously moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on the breach of contract cause of action and for class certification. The defendants separately cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. In an order entered April 18, 2017, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, granted the defendants' cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the second amended complaint and denied, as academic, the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The plaintiff appeals, limiting her arguments to the breach of contract cause of action asserted against MetaBank and the denial, as academic, of her motion for class certification.
"A court's fundamental objective in interpreting a contract is to determine the parties' intent from the language employed and to fulfill their reasonable expectations" ( Landmark Ventures, Inc. v. H5 Tech., Inc., 152 A.D.3d 657, 658, 58 N.Y.S.3d 591 ). "[A] written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms" ( Greenfield v. Philles Records, 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569, 750 N.Y.S.2d 565, 780 N.E.2d 166 ).
Here, there is no dispute that a contract was formed between the plaintiff and MetaBank, the terms of which are set forth on the sleeve which accompanied the gift card. The gift card cardholder agreement states that the gift card "may not be refunded or exchanged for cash or credit." It imposes a $15 Expired Card Fee to replace an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gridley v. Turnbury Vill., LLC
...causes of action, the plaintiff's motion for class action certification was properly denied as academic (see Sharabani v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 186 A.D.3d 1278, 131 N.Y.S.3d 22 ; Tepper v. Cablevision Sys. Corp., 19 A.D.3d 585, 797 N.Y.S.2d 131 ). "It is well settled that ‘[a] representa......
-
Pierre v. Wagner
...79 N.Y.2d at 956–957, 582 N.Y.S.2d 990, 591 N.E.2d 1176 ). The defendants submitted competent medical evidence establishing, prima 186 A.D.3d 1278 facie, that the alleged injury to the cervical region of Valerie Pierre's spine did not constitute a serious injury under either the permanent c......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bedell, 2018–09226
...stated in her affidavit that the RPAPL 1304 notice was mailed by regular and certified mail, and attached copies of the notice, the 131 N.Y.S.3d 22 plaintiff failed to attach, as exhibits to the motion, any documents establishing that the notice was actually mailed (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Co......