TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Allied Marketing Group, Inc.

The People of the State of New York v. Allied Marketing Group, Inc.

People v. Allied Mktg. Group, Inc., 220 A.D.2d 370 (1995)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
October 31, 1995
Citations
220 A.D.2d 370633 N.Y.S.2d 1371995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10768

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Edith Miller, J.), entered November 30, 1994, which summarily granted the petition alleging fraudulent and deceptive business practices against consumers in connection with mass advertising, and which awarded injunctive relief and restitution as well as imposition of maximum civil penalties per violation under three sections of the General Business Law (the total amount subject only to a determination of the number of violations), and requiring the posting of a $500,000 performance bond as a precondition for doing further business in this State, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the summary imposition of maximum penalties is lifted and the level of penalties is reserved for determination at the same hearing that will determine the number of violations, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Respondents were engaged in fraudulent and deceptive "sweepstakes” notifications which involved mass mailing announcements and use of 800- and 900-telephone numbers (maximum penalty of $500 per violation, under General Business Law § 336-b [6]), and use of simulated checks (maximum penalty of $100 per violation, under General Business Law § 396-aa). The petition also charged general deception against consumers, for which the maximum penalty is $500 per violation, under General Business Law § 350-d. Petitioner established entitlement to summary judgment for injunctive relief, restitution and damages (see, Executive Law § 63 [12]).

However, the IAS Court abused its discretion in summarily imposing the maximum civil penalties authorized by statute per violation. As long as the number of violations is yet to be determined, the court should have reserved its decision on the level of penalty per violation. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Tom, JJ.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1997: 12001: 12003: 12009: 119972026peak 1997 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Lipsitz174 Misc. 2d 571 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997)
  2. People v. Wilco Energy Corp.284 A.D.2d 469 (2001)
  3. People v. Nationwide Asset Services, Inc.26 Misc. 3d 258 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009)
  4. People v. Network Associates, Inc.195 Misc. 2d 384 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)

Most recent

  1. People v. Nationwide Asset Services, Inc.26 Misc. 3d 258 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009)
  2. People v. Network Associates, Inc.195 Misc. 2d 384 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)
  3. People v. Wilco Energy Corp.284 A.D.2d 469 (2001)
  4. People v. Lipsitz174 Misc. 2d 571 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1997)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list