Majority
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered May 16, 2005, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
In this action by an art collector against appraisers hired by his property insurer to evaluate damage to one of his paintings while on loan, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the requisite ele
Plaintiff was unable to establish his reliance on the alleged misrepresentations made by defendants (Parrott v Coopers & Lybrand, 95 NY2d 479 [2000]; LaSalle Natl. Bank u Ernst & Young, 285 AD2d 101 [2001]), or that he suffered any detriment or injury thereby (Laub v Faessel, 297 AD2d 28 , 30-31 [2002]). Similarly, he failed to demonstrate, for purposes of General Business Law § 349, that he suffered “actual” or pecuniary harm (Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43 , 56 [1999]), or that the alleged deceptive business practices were aimed at the consumer public at large (Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland Bank, 85 NY2d 20 [1995]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.
Cases cited
- Murphy v. Kuhn 90 NY2d 266 p. 251
- Parrott v. Coopers & Lybrand, L. L. P. 95 NY2d 479 p. 251
- Lasalle National Bank v. Ernst & Young L. L. P. 285 AD2d 101 p. 251
- Laub v. Faessel 297 AD2d 28 at 30-31 p. 251
- Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. 94 NY2d 43 at 56 p. 251
- Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A. 85 NY2d 20 p. 251