Stutman v. Chemical Bank

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that reliance and causation are “twin concepts,” which are not “identical” but are “often intertwined”
• holding that reliance is not required, and that \the materiality of the omission or misstatement satisfies the causation requirement\
• recognizing that a plaintiff is not required to prove individual reliance upon a defendant's deceptive practice independently in order to state a claim under GBL 349
• holding that the defendant’s misrepresentation caused a loss equal to the hidden fee
• finding that an allegation that defendants’ conduct caused plaintiffs injury was sufficient to satisfy the causation requirement for purposes of a motion to dismiss
• stating that a deceptive practice need not rise to the level of fraud to be actionable under Section 349

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).