Wall Street Transcript Corp. v. Cohn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wall Street Transcript Corp. v. Cohn

243 A.D.2d 341, 663 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10170

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 21, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about June 5, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly found that plaintiffs first cause of action is precluded by res judicata and was appropriately referred to arbitration and that its second cause of action fails to allege a viable claim under General Business Law § 349, which is directed at wrongs that have an impact upon consumers at large and does not encompass private contract disputes that, as herein, involve the parties and, at most, a limited number of [342] other tenants (Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 24-26). We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered on or about June 5, 1996, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly found that plaintiffs first cause of action is precluded by res judicata and was appropriately referred to arbitration and that its second cause of action fails to allege a viable claim under General Business Law § 349, which is directed at wrongs that have an impact upon consumers at large and does not encompass private contract disputes that, as herein, involve the parties and, at most, a limited number of [342] other tenants (Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 24-26). We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Wall Street Transcript Corp. v. Cohn, 243 A.D.2d 341, 663 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10170 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

243 A.D.2d 341 (Wall Street Transcript Corp. v. Cohn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related