In Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. (94 NY2d 43 [1999]), plaintiffs argued that the defendants concealed the fact that cigarettes were addictive, that plaintiffs would not have purchased defendants' cigarettes had their addictive qualities been disclosed, and that the plaintiffs, therefore, were entitled to recover the purchase price of the cigarettes (id. at 56). The Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs' claim stating: "Plaintiffs assert that defendants' deception prevented them from making free and informed choices as consumers. Plaintiffs add that had they known that nicotine was addictive, they never would have purchased cigarettes. They posit that consumers who buy a product that they would not have purchased, absent a manufacturer's deceptive commercial practices, have suffered an injury under General Business Law 349. We disagree. "Plaintiffs' definition of injury is legally flawed. Their theory contains no manifestation of either pecuniary or 'actual' harm; plaintiffs do not allege that the cost of cigarettes was affected by the alleged misrepresentation, nor do they seek recovery for injury to their health as a result of their ensuing addiction . Indeed, they chose expressly to confine the relief sought solely to monetary recoupment of the purchase price of the cigarettes. Plaintiffs' cause of action under this statute, as redefined by the trial court and as embraced by them, thus sets forth deception as both act and injury" (id.).