Court Opinion

ID: 9690367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:09:07.786081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:55.839928
License: Public Domain

BOB McCOY, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority but not in every holding. The majority holds that “[w]e agree with the analysis and holdings in these cases,” referring in part to Daniel v. Dow Jones & Co., 137 Misc.2d 94, 520 N.Y.S.2d 334, 336-40 (N.Y.Civ.Ct.1987), and specifically that “the relationship of the parties was ‘functionally identical to that of a purchaser of a newspaper ’ and consequently there was no special relationship between the parties.” See Maj. Op. at 264-65 (footnote omitted) (emphasis supplied). Newspapers are available gratis many places, such as the public library, business lobbies, etc. However, the investment service in this case, as pointed out by Reynolds, is only available to the reader by subscription and is not supposed to be shown to anyone other than the subscriber according to the newsletter. Additionally, the investment service in this case includes faxed updates and a telephone hotline, requires a frequently-changed on-line access code, and has a telephone access code to the hotline. *276I cannot agree these are functional equivalents.
I also cannot subscribe to the argument that there was no duty to provide Reynolds with information about the background of Murphy because appellees “did not know Reynolds was unaware of those details and because they did not intend for Reynolds or other subscribers to rely on the absence of such details in subscribing to the newsletter.” See Maj. Op. at 270. Such an argument could be made in virtually every misrepresentation case and would require Reynolds to prove that ap-pellees knew that he did not know. The method of this proof, would, I am sure, be as interesting as trying to understand what is meant by the assertion that appel-lees did not intend for Reynolds to rely on an absence of information. For these reasons, I concur with the overall result of the majority but not with the aforementioned.