Ho v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ho v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.

16 A.D.3d 256, 793 N.Y.S.2d 8, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3010

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

DecidedMarch 22, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 256 (Ho v. Visa U.S.A., 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

Ho v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 16 A.D.3d 256, 793 N.Y.S.2d 8, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3010 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[257]*257Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered June 22, 2004, dismissing the complaint in this purported class action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ claim under General Business Law § 349—retailers being required to accept defendants’ debit cards if they want to continue accepting credit cards—fails because of the remoteness of their damages from the alleged injurious activity. That debit cards result in higher charges to the retailers does not elevate to an actionable claim any perceived injuries to the retailers’ customers. Those injuries are too remote and derivative to countenance such a cause of action (see Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J. v Philip Morris USA, 3 NY3d 200 [2004]).

Plaintiffs are without standing to pursue the Donnelly Act claim (General Business Law § 340), which also fails because of remoteness. Whatever damages they suffered are barely in the zone of injury, and would be virtually impossible to calculate. Furthermore, these credit card issuers were the subject of an action brought by the retailers, which was settled. Thus, they have been subjected to judicial remediation for their wrongs, and any recovery here would be duplicative. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

[257]*257Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered June 22, 2004, dismissing the complaint in this purported class action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ claim under General Business Law § 349—retailers being required to accept defendants’ debit cards if they want to continue accepting credit cards—fails because of the remoteness of their damages from the alleged injurious activity. That debit cards result in higher charges to the retailers does not elevate to an actionable claim any perceived injuries to the retailers’ customers. Those injuries are too remote and derivative to countenance such a cause of action (see Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J. v Philip Morris USA, 3 NY3d 200 [2004]).

Plaintiffs are without standing to pursue the Donnelly Act claim (General Business Law § 340), which also fails because of remoteness. Whatever damages they suffered are barely in the zone of injury, and would be virtually impossible to calculate. Furthermore, these credit card issuers were the subject of an action brought by the retailers, which was settled. Thus, they have been subjected to judicial remediation for their wrongs, and any recovery here would be duplicative. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 256, 793 N.Y.S.2d 8, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3010, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ho-v-visa-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack