Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.
Decision Date | 26 October 1999 |
Citation | 94 N.Y.2d 43,698 N.Y.S.2d 615,720 N.E.2d 892 |
Parties | PHYLLIS SMALL et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. CATHERINE ZITO et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. SHARLENE HOBERMAN et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. ROSE FROSINA et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. PHILIP MORRIS, INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. MARY A. HOSKINS, as Executrix of EDWIN P. HOSKINS, Deceased, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
94 N.Y.2d 43
720 N.E.2d 892
698 N.Y.S.2d 615
v.
LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
CATHERINE ZITO et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
SHARLENE HOBERMAN et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants,
v.
BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
ROSE FROSINA et al., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants,
v.
PHILIP MORRIS, INC., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
MARY A. HOSKINS, as Executrix of EDWIN P. HOSKINS, Deceased, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellant,
v.
R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Argued September 14, 1999.
Decided October 26, 1999.
Seward & Kissel, L. L. P., New York City (Jack Yoskowitz and Anthony Mansfield of counsel), for Tobacco Institute, Inc., respondent.
Judges BELLACOSA, SMITH, CIPARICK, BRACKEN,6 CARDONA6 and LAWTON6 concur; Chief Judge KAYE and Judges LEVINE and ROSENBLATT taking no part.
OPINION OF THE COURT
WESLEY, J.
These consolidated appeals encompass five proposed class action suits. They are brought by plaintiffs alleging that defendants individually and collectively deceived them about the addictive properties of cigarettes and fraudulently induced them to purchase and continue to smoke cigarettes.
The trial court determined that class certification was a statutorily authorized method to adjudicate the multiplicity of claims. After the court found that plaintiffs pleaded valid causes of action against defendants and that their claims were not preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (15 USC § 1331 et seq.), it denied without prejudice defendant B.A.T. Industries' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.1
The Appellate Division decertified the classes. It also concluded that certain claims were preempted by the Federal Act, and dismissed the remaining causes of action. In granting
I.
Five class actions on behalf of New York consumers were filed against defendant tobacco companies and two other entities, the Council for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute. In each of the suits, plaintiffs sought to represent a class of New York residents who, on or after June 19, 1980,2 became or continued to be nicotine dependent as a result of buying and smoking cigarettes in New York that were manufactured by defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants used deceptive commercial practices to sell their cigarettes to New Yorkers and that they would not have bought these cigarettes had they known that nicotine is an addictive drug; that the tobacco companies controlled the level of nicotine in their cigarettes to cause or maintain nicotine addiction; and, that the companies secretly used chemicals to enhance the addictive propensities of nicotine. Plaintiffs also assert that the companies suppressed research indicating that nicotine is addictive. They seek only the reimbursement of the purchase cost of cigarettes that they claim they would not have bought, but for defendants' fraudulent and deceptive practices.3
In each case, plaintiffs' lawyers moved to certify the class of addicted smokers alleged in the various complaints. In considering the requirements for class certification pursuant to CPLR 901 (a), the trial court determined that "a claim which turns on proof of actual addiction would involve far too many
In a separate order, the trial court also determined that plaintiffs pleaded fraud with sufficient particularity and that their claims were not preempted by the Federal Labeling Act (Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 176 Misc 2d 413). The court also denied without prejudice defendant B.A.T.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Appellate Division reversed both orders on a composite appeal of the entire matter (Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 252 AD2d 1). After analyzing the requirements of CPLR 901 (a), the Court held that class certification was not justified under the statutory criteria. It also determined that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Federal statute, insofar as they allege fraudulent concealment and failure to warn of the dangers of nicotine. While it concluded that plaintiffs' claims alleging affirmative misrepresentation were not preempted by the Federal statute, the Court nonetheless dismissed those claims because they were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig.
...a material deceptive act or practice caused actual, although not necessarily pecuniary, harm.” Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., Inc. , 94 N.Y.2d 43, 698 N.Y.S.2d 615, 720 N.E.2d 892, 897 (1999) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). As with Plaintiffs' UCL claim, Plaintiffs allege ......
-
Rsm Production Corp. v. Fridman
...long ago held, a mere conspiracy to commit a tort is never of itself a cause of action")); accord Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 57, 698 N.Y.S.2d 615, 720 N.E.2d 892 (1999). In this case, because Plaintiffs fail to state causes of action for either of the torts underlying the......
-
Oden v. Bos. Scientific Corp.
...made by defendants." Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. , 252 A.D.2d 1, 15, 679 N.Y.S.2d 593, 604 (1998), aff'd, 94 N.Y.2d 43, 698 N.Y.S.2d 615, 720 N.E.2d 892 (1999) (citing Gershon v. Hertz Corp. , 215 A.D.2d 202, 203, 626 N.Y.S.2d 80 (App. Div. 1995) ("Plaintiff’s cause of action under Gener......
-
Orellana v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc., 17 Civ. 5192 (NRB)
...receive the full value of her purchase." Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289, 302 (2d Cir. 2015) (citing Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 56, 720 N.E.2d 892 (1999)). Here, plaintiffs allege that, relying upon Macy's representations that they would be released if they did so......
-
Terrible Decision Contravenes the Vaccine Act’s Purpose and Would Gut Its Protections
...WL 17338047, at *6 (emphasis original) – is ascribed to two New York Court of Appeals cases. Id. (citing Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 720 N.E.2d 892 (N.Y. 1999), and Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 647 N.E.2d 741 (N.Y. 1995)). Neither of those decisi......
-
New York State class actions: make it work - fulfill the promise.
...The Court also noted the flexibility of CPLR Article 9, and its similarity to FED. R. CIV. P. 23. Id. (20) Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 55, 720 N.E.2d 892, 897, 698 N.Y.S.2d 615, 620 (1999), afflg 252 A.D.2d 1, 679 N.Y.S.2d 593 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 1998) (affirming the lowe......