MANUEL VARELA ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. INVESTORS INSURANCE HOLDING CORP.,
DEFENDANT, FRIESNER AND SALZMAN, RESPONDENT.
81 N.Y.2d 958, 615 N.E.2d 218, 598 N.Y.S.2d 761 (1993).
April 29, 1993
2 No. 98 (1993 N.Y. Int. 91)
Decided April 29, 1993
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Robert A. Siegel, for Appellants.
Steven A. Coploff, for Respondent.
_________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Defendant law firm represented defendant Investors, an insurance
company. The company erroneously believed that plaintiffs were
delinquent in paying their insurance premiums and consequently, the
law firm commenced a collection action and entered a default judgment
against plaintiffs for the sum believed due. Although thereafter
informed by their client that a mistake had been made and that
plaintiffs did not owe Investors the premium, defendant refused to
enter a satisfaction of judgment until plaintiffs paid defendant the
amount of $60 for issuing and filing the satisfaction. Plaintiffs paid
the $60 and subsequently instituted this action asserting that they
had suffered substantial damage as a result of defendants' conduct and
seeking relief on several grounds. Among the causes asserted were
several based upon consumer protection statutes, specifically,
Articles 22-A and 29-H of the General Business Law. We conclude that
none of these causes of action may stand.
Article 22-A of the General Business Law, entitled "Consumer
Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices", declares unlawful
"(d)eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade
or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state ..."
(General Business Law § 349). Whether or not defendant's actions were
proper, manifestly they did not mislead plaintiffs in any material way
and did not constitute "deceptive acts" within the meaning of the
statute. Thus, plaintiffs were not "person(s) ... injured by reason of
any violation of (Article 22-A)" (see, General Business Law § 349(h);
SNIPPETS:
MANUEL VARELA ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. INVESTORS INSURANCE HOLDING CORP.,
DEFENDANT, FRIESNER AND SALZMAN, RESPONDENT.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Defendant law firm represented defendant Investors, an insurance company.
The company erroneously believed that plaintiffs were delinquent in paying their insurance
Although thereafter informed by their client that a mistake had been made and that plaintiffs
Plaintiffs paid the $60 and subsequently instituted this action asserting that they had
Among the causes asserted were several based upon consumer protection statutes, specifically,
Article 22-A of the General Business Law, entitled "Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts
Whether or not defendant's actions were proper, manifestly they did not mislead plaintiffs in
injured by reason of any violation of "; Genesco Entertainment v Koch, 593 F Supp 743, 751 ).
Insofar as plaintiffs rely upon Article 29-H of the General Business Law, which regulates
Given the Legislature's action in amending Article 22-A to expressly provide for a private
We have reviewed the remaining causes of action alleged in plaintiffs' complaint and agree
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Hancock, Bellacosa and Smith concur.
|
