Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Thompson v. Parkchester Apts. Co – Case Brief Summary (New York)

In Thompson v. Parkchester Apts. Co. (271 AD2d 311, 706 N.Y.S.2d 637 [1st Dept 2000]), the plaintiffs alleged that they were defrauded into purchasing their unit at an apartment complex. The plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, violations of the Martin Act and GBL § 349.

The First Department held that the plaintiffs failed to "set forth a viable claim under GBL § 349 since they have not met the threshold requirement for such a claim by showing that the alleged deceptive acts, if permitted to continue, would have a broad impact on consumers at large" (id.).

The Court explained that "the presently litigated dispute, involving faulty plumbing and what the individual plaintiffs were told about the condition of the plumbing when they purchased their individual units, is unique to the parties at this particular complex, and thus, does not fall within the ambit of the statute" (id. at 311-312.)