§ 340 — Contracts or agreements for monopoly or in restraint of trade illegal and void

New York § 340

• Jurisdiction: New York
• Law GBS: General Business
• Art. 22: Monopolies

Text

§ 340. Contracts or agreements for monopoly or in restraint of trade\nillegal and void. 1. Every contract, agreement, arrangement or\ncombination whereby\n A monopoly in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the\nfurnishing of any service in this state, is or may be established or\nmaintained, or whereby\n Competition or the free exercise of any activity in the conduct of any\nbusiness, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this\nstate is or may be restrained or whereby\n For the purpose of establishing or maintaining any such monopoly or\nunlawfully interfering with the free exercise of any activity in the\nconduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any\nservice in this state any business, trade or commerce or the furnishing\nof any service is or may be restrained, is hereby declared to be against\npublic policy, illegal and void.\n 2. Subject to the exceptions hereinafter provided in this section, the\nprovisions of this article shall apply to licensed insurers, licensed\ninsurance agents, licensed insurance brokers, licensed independent\nadjusters and other persons and organizations subject to the provisions\nof the insurance law, to the extent not regulated by provisions of\narticle twenty-three of the insurance law; and further provided, that\nnothing in this section shall apply to the marine insurances, including\nmarine protection and indemnity insurance and marine reinsurance,\nexempted from the operation of article twenty-three of the insurance\nlaw.\n 3. The provisions of this article shall not apply to cooperative\nassociations, corporate or otherwise, of farmers, gardeners, or\ndairymen, including live stock farmers and fruit growers, nor to\ncontracts, agreements or arrangements made by such associations, nor to\nbona fide labor unions.\n 4. The labor of human beings shall not be deemed or held to be a\ncommodity or article of commerce as such terms are used in this section\nand nothing herein contained shall be deemed to prohibit or restrict the\nright of workingmen to combine in unions, organizations and\nassociations, not organized for the purpose of profit.\n 5. An action to recover damages caused by a violation of this section\nmust be commenced within four years after the cause of action has\naccrued. The state, or any political subdivision or public authority of\nthe state, or any person who shall sustain damages by reason of any\nviolation of this section, shall recover three-fold the actual damages\nsustained thereby, as well as costs not exceeding ten thousand dollars,\nand reasonable attorneys' fees. At or before the commencement of any\ncivil action by a party other than the attorney-general for a violation\nof this section, notice thereof shall be served upon the\nattorney-general. Where the aggrieved party is a political subdivision\nor public authority of the state, notice of intention to commence an\naction under this section must be served upon the attorney-general at\nleast ten days prior to the commencement of such action. This section\nshall not apply to any action commenced prior to the effective date of\nthis act.\n 6. In any action pursuant to this section, the fact that the state, or\nany political subdivision or public authority of the state, or any\nperson who has sustained damages by reason of violation of this section\nhas not dealt directly with the defendant shall not bar or otherwise\nlimit recovery; provided, however, that in any action in which claims\nare asserted against a defendant by both direct and indirect purchasers,\nthe court shall take all steps necessary to avoid duplicate liability,\nincluding but not limited to the transfer and consolidation of all\nrelated actions. In actions where both direct and indirect purchasers\nare involved, a defendant shall be entitled to prove as a partial or\ncomplete defense to a claim for damages that the illegal overcharge has\nbeen passed on to others who are themselves entitled to recover so as to\navoid duplication of recovery of damages.\n