PHYLLIS SMALL ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
RESPONDENTS, LORILLARD, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
--------------------------------- AND FOUR ADDITIONAL ACTIONS: ZITO V.
AMERICAN TOBACCO HOBERMAN V. BROWN & WILLIAMSON FROSINA V. PHILIP MORRIS
HOSKINS V. R.J. REYNOLDS
94 N.Y.2d 43 (1999).
October 26, 1999
1 No. 154
(99 NY Int. 0145)
Decided October 26, 1999
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Martis Ann Brachtl, for appellants.
Gary R. Long (pro hac vice), for respondents except
B.A.T Industries.
Roy L. Reardon, for respondent B.A.T Industries.
Deon J. Nossel for Attorney General of the State of New
York, amicus curiae.
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 ofclaims. 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's motion to
dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (n.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 leave to appeal, the Appellate
Division certified the usual question to us: "Was the order of this
SNIPPETS:
PHYLLIS SMALL ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. LORILLARD TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., ET AL.,
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
These consolidated appeals encompass five proposed class action suits.
They are brought by plaintiffs alleging that defendants individually and collectively
After the court found that plaintiffs pleaded valid causes of action against defendants and
In granting leave to appeal, the Appellate Division certified the usual question to us: "Was
and affirm the Appellate Division order.
In each of the suits, plaintiffs sought to represent a class of New York residents who, on or
Plaintiffs allege that defendants used deceptive commercial practices to sell their
They seek only the reimbursement of the purchase cost of cigarettes that they claim they
In considering the requirements for class certification pursuant to CPLR 901, the trial court
The court concluded that issues regarding addiction are not part of the claims presented
It also determined that plaintiffs' claimswere preempted by the Federal statute, insofar as
Whether a lawsuit qualifies as a class action matter is a determination made upon a review of
The Appellate Division stated in its order granting leave to appeal and in its order of
Notwithstanding Supreme Court's removal ofaddiction as an element of plaintiffs' pleaded
Since plaintiffs cannot proceed as class representatives, this Court must next resolve
Generally, claims under the statute are available to an individual consumer who falls victim
According to plaintiffs, addiction is not the injury; rather, plaintiffs assert that
|
