Weber v. Rainbow Software, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weber v. Rainbow Software, Inc.

21 A.D.3d 411, 799 N.Y.S.2d 428

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

DecidedAugust 8, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 411 (Weber v. Rainbow Software, 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

Weber v. Rainbow Software, Inc., 21 A.D.3d 411, 799 N.Y.S.2d 428 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a purported class action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227), the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated November 18, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

For the reasons set forth in Rudgayzer & Gratt v Cape Canaveral Tour and Travel (22 AD3d 148 [2005] [decided herewith]), no class action may be maintained pursuant to CPLR 901 (b). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In a purported class action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 USC § 227), the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated November 18, 2003, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the class action allegations of the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

For the reasons set forth in Rudgayzer & Gratt v Cape Canaveral Tour and Travel (22 AD3d 148 [2005] [decided herewith]), no class action may be maintained pursuant to CPLR 901 (b). Schmidt, J.P., Mastro, Rivera and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 411, 799 N.Y.S.2d 428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weber-v-rainbow-software-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack