Cunningham v. Bayer AG

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. Bayer AG

24 A.D.3d 216, 804 N.Y.S.2d 924

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 216 (Cunningham v. Bayer AG) 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

Cunningham v. Bayer AG, 24 A.D.3d 216, 804 N.Y.S.2d 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe III, J.), entered on or about October 28, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the class action claims brought under General Business Law § 340, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs concede that their argument on appeal is contrary to the decisions of this Court in Cox v Microsoft Corp. (290 AD2d 206 [2002], lv dismissed 98 NY2d 728 [2002]) and Asher v Abbott Labs. (290 AD2d 208 [2002], lv dismissed 98 NY2d 728 [2002]), and we decline to revisit those precedents. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe III, J.), entered on or about October 28, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the class action claims brought under General Business Law § 340, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs concede that their argument on appeal is contrary to the decisions of this Court in Cox v Microsoft Corp. (290 AD2d 206 [2002], lv dismissed 98 NY2d 728 [2002]) and Asher v Abbott Labs. (290 AD2d 208 [2002], lv dismissed 98 NY2d 728 [2002]), and we decline to revisit those precedents. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 216, 804 N.Y.S.2d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-bayer-ag-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack