Weiner v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury, Inc.
Alice M. Weiner, on Behalf of Herself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury, Inc., Doing Business as Fortunoff Westbrook, Fortunoff and Fortunoff, New York
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
In this action (styled as a class action) for a judgment inter alia declaring that defendant’s method of billing its customers, including plaintiff, under retail installment credit agreements is violative of subdivision 3 of section 413 of the Personal Property Law and illegal, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated January 28, 1972, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. In the light of the determination in Zachary v. R. H. Macy & Co. (31 N Y 2d 443), the complaint should have been dismissed. Moreover, in connection with the untenability as a matter of law of the second cause of action, see Household Finance v. Div. 524, 527, affd. 289 N. Y. 574 ). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur. [ 69 Misc 2d 171 .]
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 0 cases
No case in this database cites this case.