Dillon v. U-A Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc.

790 N.E.2d 1155, 100 N.Y.2d 525, 760 N.Y.S.2d 726
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 1, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by95 cases

This text of 790 N.E.2d 1155 (Dillon v. U-A Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dillon v. U-A Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc., 790 N.E.2d 1155, 100 N.Y.2d 525, 760 N.Y.S.2d 726 (N.Y. 2003).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, a customer of defendant cable television company, commenced this purported class action for compensatory and punitive damages challenging the $5 late fee she paid to defendant for her late payments. The complaint alleges that, although defendant in its promotional materials characterized the late fee as an administrative fee intended to be a reasonable estimate of its costs resulting from customers’ late payments and nonpayments, it was an unlawful penalty bearing no relation to defendant’s actual costs incurred in servicing such payments, and plaintiff would not have paid the fee had she known the true facts. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

We agree with both lower courts that the voluntary payment doctrine bars plaintiff’s complaint. That common-law doctrine bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full knowledge of the facts, and in the absence of fraud or mistake of material fact or law (see Gimbel Bros. v Brook Shopping Ctrs., 118 AD2d 532, 535-536 [1986]). Here, no fraud or mistake is alleged in that, according to the complaint, plaintiff knew she would be charged a $5 late fee if she did not make timely payment. Alleged mischaracterization of a $5 late fee as an administrative fee does not overcome application of the voluntary payment doctrine.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

GITSIT Solutions, LLC v. Azcuy
2025 NY Slip Op 05670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Brooklyn Tabernacle v. Thor 180 Livingston, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 05492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Gila, LLC v. Kapsch Trafficcom USA, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2025
Kahan v. 960 Franklin LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 30134(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2025)
Skonieczki v. Park Ave. Assoc. In Radiology, P.C.
2024 NY Slip Op 31557(U) (New York Supreme Court, Broome County, 2024)
Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Re-Insurance Co.
2023 NY Slip Op 04042 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Pinnacle Managing Co., LLC v. Slade Indus., Inc.
192 N.Y.S.3d 116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
ZAKHEIM v. CURB MOBILITY LLC
E.D. Pennsylvania, 2023
ECI Fin. Corp. v. Resurrection Temple of Our Lord, Inc.
213 A.D.3d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Cordaro v. AdvantageCare Physicians, P.C.
2022 NY Slip Op 05267 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
790 N.E.2d 1155, 100 N.Y.2d 525, 760 N.Y.S.2d 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dillon-v-u-a-columbia-cablevision-of-westchester-inc-ny-2003.