Bonime v. Bridge 21, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonime v. Bridge 21, Inc.

21 A.D.3d 393, 799 N.Y.S.2d 417

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 8, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 393 (Bonime v. Bridge 21, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bonime v. Bridge 21, Inc., 21 A.D.3d 393, 799 N.Y.S.2d 417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a purported class action to recover damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227), the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated May 28, 2004, as granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

For the reasons set forth in Rudgayzer & Gratt v Cape Canaveral Tour & Travel (22 AD3d 148 [2005] [decided herewith]), a class action may not be maintained pursuant to CPLR 901 (b). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a purported class action to recover damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227), the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rosenberg, J.), dated May 28, 2004, as granted the defendants’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

For the reasons set forth in Rudgayzer & Gratt v Cape Canaveral Tour & Travel (22 AD3d 148 [2005] [decided herewith]), a class action may not be maintained pursuant to CPLR 901 (b). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 393, 799 N.Y.S.2d 417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonime-v-bridge-21-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack