You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Bisk v. Manhattan Club Timeshare Ass'n

Citations: 118 A.D.3d 585; 987 N.Y.S.2d 164

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; June 19, 2014; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a decision by the Supreme Court of New York County, the court reversed the lower court's denial of a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed by plaintiffs against defendants regarding alleged deceptive practices related to timeshare accommodations. Plaintiffs claimed they were unable to use their timeshare units for vacations as the defendants rented out a significant portion of units to the public. However, the court found that such assertions were improperly presented in a memorandum opposing the dismissal motion, as they were not included in the initial complaint or supporting affidavit. Additionally, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims were speculative and lacked robust supporting evidence, noting that the rental practices were disclosed in the offering documents. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and the court ordered the entry of judgment without costs, with all justices concurring in the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Disclosure of Deceptive Practices in Offering Documents

Application: The court found that practices disclosed in offering documents cannot be deemed deceptive if the plaintiffs were adequately informed.

Reasoning: It noted that the alleged deceptive practice regarding the rental of unused accommodations to the public was clearly disclosed to plaintiffs in the offering documents.

Introduction of New Allegations in Motion Opposition

Application: The court held that new assertions introduced in opposition to a motion to dismiss are improper if they do not appear in the original complaint or supporting affidavit.

Reasoning: The court found that this assertion was improperly introduced, as it did not appear in the original complaint or supporting affidavit but rather in a memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss.

Judgment and Costs in Dismissed Actions

Application: The court directed the dismissal of the complaint with no costs awarded, reflecting a unanimous decision among the justices.

Reasoning: Following its analysis, the court directed the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing the complaint, with no costs awarded.

Sufficiency of Allegations in Class Action Lawsuits

Application: The court determined that allegations must be substantive and not merely conclusory or speculative to survive a motion to dismiss.

Reasoning: The court further determined that the plaintiffs' other claims lacked substance, being conclusory and speculative.