People v. Trammell

How courts have described this case

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

• dismissing GBL §§ 349, 350 claims; “allthough the plaintiff cites particular misleading statements,” he “nowhere states in his complaint that he saw any of these statements before he purchased” the product at issue
• dismissing N.Y. GBL §§349 and 350 claims where plaintiff identified allegedly misleading statements on a product he possessed, but failed to claim that he saw the statements prior to purchasing or coming into possession of it
• where plaintiff did not see any misleading statements regarding defective product prior to purchase thereof, no connection between deceptive act and plaintiffs injury
• a plaintiff must at a minimum be aware of the false statements to plead causation with sufficient specificity
• “failure to plead the name of the seller . . . rendered defective the plaintiffs cause[] of action alleging . . . unjust enrichment’
• “If the plaintiff did not see any of these [misleading] statements, they could not have been the cause of his injury, there being no connection between the deceptive act and the plaintiff’s injury[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).