Opinion
1540
June 26, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered January 16, 2003, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss that portion of plaintiff's first cause of action seeking future damages and his second cause of action alleging a violation of General Business Law § 349, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Elizabeth Eilender, for plaintiff-appellant.
Evan H. Krinick, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.
The court properly dismissed plaintiff's second cause of action alleging a violation of General Business Law § 349 since plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to support an inference that there had been a deceptive act or practice by defendants (see Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Band, N.A., 85 N.Y.2d 20, 25-26; cf., Acquista v. New York Life Ins. Co., 285 A.D.2d 73, 82), or that defendants had, in their treatment of plaintiff, engaged in "consumer-oriented" conduct affecting consumers at large (see Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 94 N.Y.2d 330, 344; Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund, 85 N.Y.2d at 24-25).
Also properly dismissed was plaintiff's claim for a lump sum payment of future insurance benefits since plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to warrant the inference that defendant insurers had completely repudiated the policy issued by them to plaintiff (see Scherer v. The Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of the United States, 190 F. Supp.2d 629, 632-633).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.