Case Name: Aaron Asher et al., Appellants, v. Abbott Laboratories et al., Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2002-01-03
Citations: 290 A.D.2d 208
Docket Number: 
Parties: Aaron Asher et al., Appellants, v Abbott Laboratories et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 290
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
Aaron Asher et al., Appellants, v Abbott Laboratories et al., Respondents.
[737 NYS2d 4]

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered October 12, 2000, which, in an action under General Business Law § 340 (the Donnelly Act), insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Private persons cannot bring a class action under the Donnelly Act because the treble damages remedy provided in General Business Law § 340 (5) is a "penalty" within the meaning of CPLR 901 (b), the recovery of which in a class action is not specifically authorized and the imposition of which cannot be waived (Rubin v Nine W. Group, 1999 NY Misc LEXIS 655, *10-14, 1999 WL 1425364, *4-5 [Sup Ct, Westchester County, John DiBlasi, J.]; Russo & Dubin v Allied Maintenance Corp., 95 Misc 2d 344, 348-349 [Sup Ct, NY County, Hilda Schwartz, J., 1978]; Blumenthal v American Socy. of Travel Agents, 1977 WL 18392, *3 [Sup Ct, NY County, Arnold Féin, J.]; see also, McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C901:7; Cox v Microsoft Corp., 290 AD2d 206 [decided herewith]). We note the specific authorization to bring class actions on behalf of governmental entities given to the Attorney General in General Business Law § 342-b, the absence of such specific authorization in section 340 (6), and the enactment of the latter provision after two courts (Blumenthal, supra; Russo & Dubin, supra) had held that class actions could not be brought under the Donnelly Act because not specifically authorized (see, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 74, 240, 363). The conclusion that treble damages under the Donnelly Act are penal in nature is not undermined by the fact that they are mandatory, i.e., not discretionary or contingent upon a finding of bad faith, and indeed it can be argued that a statute providing for an award of multiple damages without need to prove willfulness or bad faith is more punitive than one that does require such proof. Concur — Tom, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.