Nenadovic v. P.T. Tenants Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• upholding the dismissal of a claim for negligent misrepresentation “because this cause of action sought, in essence, to pursue a private cause of action under the Martin Act”
• relying on CPC Inti Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 70 N.Y.2d 268, 276-77, 519 N.Y.S.2d 804, 514 N.E.2d 116 (1987), which held that there is no implied private right of action under the Martin Act
• “It is now well settled that there is no private cause of action under the Martin Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).