Recently, New York courts ruled on a variety of important class action issues involving counterfeit wines and GBL §350, inverse condemnation and terminal boxes, gift cards, overdrafts and federal preemption, denial of no-fault medical equipment claims and sua sponte class certification, post-graduate employment prospects for law students, rent overcharges and the J-51 program, and run-flat tires and causation.
The Dynamic Duo
Within a five-year period, the state Legislature enacted two important salutary statutes, one procedural, in 1975, Article 9 of the CPLR (class actions), 1 and the other substantive, in 1980, creating a private right of action 2 for the enforcement of GBL §349 (misleading and deceptive business practices) and GBL §350 (false advertising). The enactment of this “dynamic duo” of remedial devices heralded, some thought, 3 a new dawn of consumer remedies.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
