Loeb v. Architecture Work, P.C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Loeb v. Architecture Work, P.C.

2017 NY Slip Op 7551, 154 A.D.3d 616, 62 N.Y.S.3d 787

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

DecidedOctober 31, 2017

Docket4864 654495/15

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7551 (Loeb v. Architecture Work, P.C.) 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

Loeb v. Architecture Work, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 7551, 154 A.D.3d 616, 62 N.Y.S.3d 787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the third cause of action alleging violation of General Business Law § 349, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

This is essentially a private contract dispute unique to the parties (see e.g. New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 320 [1995]). Even if, arguendo, defendant Architecture Work, PC. (Archwork) engaged in consumer-oriented conduct by placing statements on its website, those statements were not “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances” (Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 26 [1995]); instead, they were mere puffery (see e.g. MMCT, LLC v JTR Coll. Point, LLC, 122 AD3d 497, 498 [1st Dept 2014]). Furthermore, even if the statements on Archwork’s website were deceptive, they did not cause plaintiff’s injury. Rather, plaintiff’s alleged injury was a result of specific acts and omissions by the individual defendant, such as failing to provide constructible drawings, redesigning the apartment’s windows and doors without authorization, and failing to coordinate the project.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the third cause of action alleging violation of General Business Law § 349, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

This is essentially a private contract dispute unique to the parties (see e.g. New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 320 [1995]). Even if, arguendo, defendant Architecture Work, PC. (Archwork) engaged in consumer-oriented conduct by placing statements on its website, those statements were not “likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances” (Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 26 [1995]); instead, they were mere puffery (see e.g. MMCT, LLC v JTR Coll. Point, LLC, 122 AD3d 497, 498 [1st Dept 2014]). Furthermore, even if the statements on Archwork’s website were deceptive, they did not cause plaintiff’s injury. Rather, plaintiff’s alleged injury was a result of specific acts and omissions by the individual defendant, such as failing to provide constructible drawings, redesigning the apartment’s windows and doors without authorization, and failing to coordinate the project.

Concur — Acosta, P.J., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7551, 154 A.D.3d 616, 62 N.Y.S.3d 787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loeb-v-architecture-work-pc-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack