Kaplan v. Ludwig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaplan v. Ludwig

286 A.D.2d 970, 730 N.Y.S.2d 765, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8902

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

DecidedSeptember 28, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 286 A.D.2d 970 (Kaplan v. Ludwig) 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

Kaplan v. Ludwig, 286 A.D.2d 970, 730 N.Y.S.2d 765, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking damages for defendants’ alleged multiple violations of Federal and State law governing the activities of telemarketers and other makers of unsolicited business calls (see, 47 USC § 227; 47 CFR 64.1200; General Business Law § 399-p [3]). Town Court dismissed the claim, and, upon plaintiff’s appeal, County Court modified the judgment of Town Court by awarding plaintiff $50 in presumed damages for a violation of General Business Law § 399-p.

We modify the order of County Court and the judgment of Town Court by awarding plaintiff, as against both defendants, judgment in the principal sum of $550, plus interest commencing from March 21, 2000, together with costs and disbursements. Plaintiff established a violation of both the Federal statute and regulations and the State statute (see, 47 USC §227 [b] [1] [B]; [2] [B]; 47 CFR 64.1200 [e] [2] [i],[iv]; General Business Law § 399-p [3] [a]). (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Court, Parenti, J.— Small Claims.) Present— Green, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Order and Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiff in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this small claims action seeking damages for defendants’ alleged multiple violations of Federal and State law governing the activities of telemarketers and other makers of unsolicited business calls (see, 47 USC § 227; 47 CFR 64.1200; General Business Law § 399-p [3]). Town Court dismissed the claim, and, upon plaintiff’s appeal, County Court modified the judgment of Town Court by awarding plaintiff $50 in presumed damages for a violation of General Business Law § 399-p.

We modify the order of County Court and the judgment of Town Court by awarding plaintiff, as against both defendants, judgment in the principal sum of $550, plus interest commencing from March 21, 2000, together with costs and disbursements. Plaintiff established a violation of both the Federal statute and regulations and the State statute (see, 47 USC §227 [b] [1] [B]; [2] [B]; 47 CFR 64.1200 [e] [2] [i],[iv]; General Business Law § 399-p [3] [a]). (Appeal from Order of Wayne County Court, Parenti, J.— Small Claims.) Present— Green, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 970, 730 N.Y.S.2d 765, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaplan-v-ludwig-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack