Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdamagespleaequitable relief
contractplaintiffdefendantstatutepleamotionmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Dennie v. Metropolitan Medical Center, 387 N.W.2d 401, 58 A.L.R.4th 639
View Case »
Benjamin v. Jacobson, 172 F.3d 144
View Case »
Durkin v. Shea & Gould, 92 F.3d 1510, 65 USLW 2125, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6146, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,095
View Case »
In re Green Grand Jury Proceedings, 492 F.3d 976
View Case »
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 53 L.Ed.2d 594
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gomez-Jimenez v. New York Law School, 103 A.D.3d 13, 956 N.Y.S.2d 54, 287 Ed. Law Rep. 975, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 08819, 91 A.L.R.6th 735

Facts

The plaintiffs, graduates of New York Law School who attended between 2004 and 2011, claimed that the school provided misleading employment and salary data that influenced their decision to enroll. They alleged that the data included temporary and part-time positions and was based on a small subset of graduates, which they argued inflated the perceived value of their law degrees. The complaint sought damages and equitable relief, including tuition refunds.

Plaintiffs are graduates of the law school who attended the school between 2004 and 2011. They assert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, a claim for deceptive acts and practices in violation of General Business Law (GBL) § 349 and claims for common-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

Issue

Did the law school's disclosures regarding post-graduate employment and salary data constitute deceptive acts under General Business Law § 349, and did the graduates adequately state claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation?

Did the law school's disclosures regarding post-graduate employment and salary data constitute deceptive acts under General Business Law § 349, and did the graduates adequately state claims for fraud and negligent misrepresentation?

Rule

To establish a claim under GBL § 349, a plaintiff must show that the conduct was consumer-oriented, deceptive in a material way, and caused injury. For fraud, a plaintiff must allege a false representation made with the intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting injury.

To state a cause of action under that statute, a plaintiff 'must, at the threshold, charge conduct that is consumer oriented. The conduct need not be repetitive or recurring but defendant's acts or practices must have a broad impact on consumers at large; [p]rivate contract disputes unique to the parties … would not fall within the ambit of [GBL 349]'

Analysis

The court found that the law school's disclosures, while incomplete, were not false or misleading. The school complied with applicable disclosure rules and did not misrepresent the nature of the employment data. The court held that the plaintiffs' reliance on the disclosures was unreasonable, as the school had disclosed the sample size and nature of the employment data.

Nevertheless, although there is no question that the type of employment information published by defendant (and other law schools) during the relevant period likely left some consumers with an incomplete, if not false, impression of the schools' job placement success, Supreme Court correctly held that this statistical gamesmanship, which the ABA has since repudiated in its revised disclosure guidelines, does not give rise to a cognizable claim under GBL 349.

Conclusion

The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the law school's disclosures were not materially deceptive or misleading and that the graduates failed to state valid claims for fraud or negligent misrepresentation.

Accordingly, the order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered March 21, 2012, which granted defendant New York Law School's motion to dismiss the complaint, should be affirmed, without costs.

Who won?

New York Law School prevailed in the case because the court found that its disclosures were not materially misleading and that the plaintiffs' claims were inadequately pleaded.

New York Law School prevailed in the case because the court found that its disclosures were not materially misleading and that the plaintiffs' claims were inadequately pleaded.

You must be