Bonime v. Discount Funding Associates, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonime v. Discount Funding Associates, Inc.

21 A.D.3d 393, 799 N.Y.S.2d 418

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. Discount Funding Associates, 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. Discount Funding Associates, Inc., 21 A.D.3d 393, 799 N.Y.S.2d 418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a putative class action to recover damages for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227), the defendants separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated October 6, 2003, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the class action allegations and dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the branches of the defendants’ respective motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the class action allegations and dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

For the reasons set forth in Rudgayzer & Gratt v Cape Canaveral Tour and Travel (22 AD3d 148 [2005] [decided herewith]), a class action may not be maintained in this case (see CPLR 901 [b]). In light of our determination, the defendants’ remaining contentions are academic. S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a putative class action to recover damages for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227), the defendants separately appeal, as limited by their respective briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), dated October 6, 2003, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the class action allegations and dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs, the branches of the defendants’ respective motions which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the class action allegations and dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them are granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

For the reasons set forth in Rudgayzer & Gratt v Cape Canaveral Tour and Travel (22 AD3d 148 [2005] [decided herewith]), a class action may not be maintained in this case (see CPLR 901 [b]). In light of our determination, the defendants’ remaining contentions are academic. S. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 393, 799 N.Y.S.2d 418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonime-v-discount-funding-associates-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack