From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aponte v. Raychuk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 26, 1990
160 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

April 26, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).


Defendant, an attorney, advertised his services in various newspapers, in advertisements which stated, "DIVORCE, LOW FEE, POSSIBLE 10 DAYS, GREEN CARD", followed by defendant's name, office address, and telephone number. In the order now appealed from, the court enjoined defendant from continuing these advertisements, finding that a showing had been made that the advertisement was deceptive within the meaning of the New York City Consumer Protection Law (Administrative Code of City of New York § 20-700 et seq.). In affirming the granting of the preliminary injunction, we find no inconsistency between the local law and the legislative delegation of authority to this court to regulate the conduct of attorneys. Nor are we able to discern any implied legislative intent to preempt this area of regulation.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Rosenberger, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.


Summaries of

Aponte v. Raychuk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 26, 1990
160 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Aponte v. Raychuk

Case Details

Full title:ANGELO J. APONTE, as Commissioner of the New York City Department of…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 26, 1990

Citations

160 A.D.2d 636 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Citing Cases

Polonetsky v. Better Homes Depot

(See, Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, supra.) However, the law has been applied to a variety of…

Polonetsky v. BETTER HOMES

(See, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, supra.) However, the law has been applied to a variety of other…