From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sheth v. New York Life Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 13, 2000
273 A.D.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Summary

holding that the challenged practices were not consumer-oriented under § 349 because they were directed only at prospective insurance agents

Summary of this case from Spread Enters., Inc. v. First Data Merch. Servs. Corp.

Opinion

June 13, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered October 12, 1999, which granted, in part, and denied, in part, defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant defendant's motion to the further extent of dismissing plaintiffs' second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the fourth cause of action for deceptive trade practices, and the eighth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Krishnan S. Chittur, for plaintiffs-respondents-appellants.

Jay B. Kasner, for defendant-appellant-respondent.

Before: Lerner, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley, Friedman, JJ.


The second cause of action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing should have been dismissed since such a claim may not be used as a substitute for a nonviable claim of breach of contract (see, Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., 58 N.Y.2d 293, 304; Prestige Foods v. Whale Sec. Co., 243 A.D.2d 281;Trade Indus. Corp. (USA) v. Euro Brokers Inv. Corp., 222 A.D.2d 364, 367-368). While "New York does recognize that in appropriate circumstances an obligation of good faith and fair dealing on the part of a party to a contract may be implied and, if implied will be enforced," the implied obligation "is in aid and furtherance of other terms of the agreement of the parties," but "[n]o obligation can be implied... which would be inconsistent with other terms of the contractual relationship" (Murphy v. American Home Prods. Corp., supra, at 304), and in the context of an at-will employment contract "it would be incongruous to say that an inference may be drawn that the employer impliedly agreed to a provision which would be destructive of his right of termination. The parties may by express agreement limit or restrict the employer's right of discharge, but to imply such a limitation from the existence of an unrestricted right would be internally inconsistent" (id. at 304-305).

In addition, the court should have granted dismissal of plaintiffs' fourth cause of action, alleging deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349. Plaintiffs do not allege that the challenged practices were directed at consumers, but, rather, only at prospective insurance agents. General Business Law Article 22-A, which includes section 349, is intended to protect consumers, that is, those who purchase goods and services for personal, family or household use (see, Cruz v. NYNEX Information Resources, 263 A.D.2d 285, 290 703 N.Y.S.2d 103, 106). While the requirement that the challenged conduct be "consumer-oriented" may be met by a showing that the practice has a broader impact on the consumer at large (see, Cruz, supra, at 107, citing Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A., 85 N.Y.2d 20, 25-27), no such impact may be inferred from the allegations of the complaint.

Plaintiffs' eighth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation should also have been dismissed, for the same reason that the court dismissed the seventh cause of action for fraudulent misrepresentation. The purported misrepresentations relied upon by plaintiffs may not form the basis of a claim for fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation since they are conclusory and/or constitute mere puffery, opinions of value or future expectations (see, Elghanian v. Harvey, 249 A.D.2d 206; Schonfeld v. Thompson, 243 A.D.2d 343; Bader v. Siegel, 238 A.D.2d 272) or are contradicted by the written agreement between the parties (see,Prestige Foods v. Whale Sec. Co., supra, at 282; Sanyo Elec. v. Pinros Gar Corp., 174 A.D.2d 452, 453).

The motion court correctly denied dismissal of the sixth cause of action claiming fraudulent concealment, inasmuch as defendant's alleged failure to disclose its assertedly clandestine practice of applying unacknowledged production quotas to its agents constitutes sufficient support to establish the elements of the cause of action (see, Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 421; Swersky v. Dreyer and Traub, 219 A.D.2d 321, 326-327).

We have considered the parties' remaining arguments for affirmative relief and find them unavailing.

Motion seeking to file a surreply brief granted.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Sheth v. New York Life Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 13, 2000
273 A.D.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

holding that the challenged practices were not consumer-oriented under § 349 because they were directed only at prospective insurance agents

Summary of this case from Spread Enters., Inc. v. First Data Merch. Servs. Corp.

holding that the challenged practices were not consumer-oriented under § 349 because they were directed only at prospective insurance agents

Summary of this case from Spirit Locker, Inc. v. Evo Direct, LLC

holding that claims based on "conclusory" statements and opinions of "future expectations" are not actionable as fraud

Summary of this case from EED Holdings v. Palmer Johnson Acquisition Corp.

holding that a deceptive business practice claim should be dismissed if it alleges actions that were directed only at prospective insurance agents, and not individual consumers

Summary of this case from Exxonmobil Inter-America, Inc. v. Advanced Information Engineering Services, Inc.

finding no § 349 claim for act of life insurance company against prospective life insurance agents

Summary of this case from EUA COGENEX CORP. v. NORTH ROCKLAND CENT. SCHL. DIST.

finding no § 349 claim for act of life insurance company against prospective life insurance agents

Summary of this case from Parex Bank v. Russian Savings Bank

noting that purported misrepresentations that are opinions of value may not form a basis for fraud

Summary of this case from Bailey v. N.Y. Law Sch.

noting that a misrepresentation of fact is an essential element of a negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation claim

Summary of this case from Sovereign Bank v. RCI Plumbing Corp.

dismissing fraud claims based on statements that were “conclusory and/or constitute[d] mere puffery, opinions of value or future expectations.”

Summary of this case from Buckman v. Calyon Sec. (Usa) Inc.
Case details for

Sheth v. New York Life Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:SANJAY C. SHETH, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, v. NEW YORK…

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

Date published: Jun 13, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
709 N.Y.S.2d 74

Citing Cases

Taib Bank v. W. End Equity I, Ltd.

8. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing -- Underwriting AgreementThis claim duplicates defendants'…

INV Accelerator, LLC v. MX Techs., Inc.

For purposes of § 349, consumers are defined as "those who purchase goods and services for personal, family…