Opinion ID: 813434
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deceptive Business Practice

Text: Plaintiffs next appeal the District Court’s order dismissing their claim under NYGBL § 349, which declares unlawful “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law. § 349(a). “To make out a prima facie case under Section 349, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) the defendant’s deceptive acts were directed at consumers, (2) the acts are misleading in a material way, and (3) the plaintiff has been injured as a result.” Maurizio v. Goldsmith, 230 F.3d 518, 521 (2d Cir. 2000); see also Stutman v. Chemical Bank, 95 N.Y.2d 24, 29, 731 N.E.2d 608, 611 (2000) (“A plaintiff under section 349 must prove three elements: first, that the challenged act or practice was consumer-oriented; second, that it was misleading in a material way; and third, that the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the deceptive act.”). The District Court has amply explained why plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint fails to allege facts that, even taken as true, make out the first two elements—that the challenged acts were consumeroriented or that they were misleading in a material way. Therefore, substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s clear and comprehensive Opinion and Order of March 30, 2012, Plaintiffs’ claim under NYGBL § 349 was properly dismissed.