not likely to involve statutory interpretations or policy determinations by DHCR.
General Business Law § 349
The fourth cause of action alleges a violation of General Business Law § 349, which
provides a private right of action for any person injured by reason of a violation of section 349,
and is directed at wrongs against the consuming public (Disa Realty, Inc. v Rao., 137 AD3d 740, 742 [2d Dept 2016]). To
state a claim under this section, a plaintiff must allege that the defendants' materially deceptive
conduct caused injury, and that defendants' conduct was consumer-oriented with a broad impact
on consumers at large (Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v Marine Midland
Bank, 85 NY2d 20, 24-25 [1995]). In Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund, the
Court of Appeals held that "plaintiffs have satisfied the threshold test [when] the acts they
complain of are consumer-oriented in the sense that they potentially affect similarly situated
consumers" (id. at 26-27).
Here, "[p]laintiffs' allegations of unlawfully deceptive acts and practices under General
Business Law § 349 present[ ] only private disputes between landlords and tenants, and not
consumer-oriented conduct aimed at the public at large, as required by the statute" (Aguaiza v Vantage Props., LLC, 69
AD3d 422, 423 [1st Dept 2010]). The claim is not validly stated because the action is
limited to plaintiffs' apartments, and does not involve "'the public at large'" (Sutton Apts. Corp. v Bradhurst 100 Dev.,
LLC, 107 AD3d 646, 648 [1st Dept 2013], quoting Merin v Precinct Devs. LLC, 74 AD3d 688, 689 [1st Dept 2010]
[allegedly defective conditions not disclosed to plaintiffs prior to purchase involved a "private
contractual dispute between the parties without ramification for the public at large"]).