Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; July 6, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court
A proposed class action has been initiated by New York State residents who developed lung and/or throat cancer allegedly due to smoking cigarettes, seeking damages for failure to warn and fraud. The defendants, comprising major tobacco companies and associated entities, are appealing a Supreme Court order that denied their motion to dismiss the complaint and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and expedited discovery. The appellate court modified the order by removing the class certification and dismissing certain claims related to failure to warn after 1969, as well as claims for negligent misrepresentation and implied warranties based on post-1969 advertising practices. The case implicates five cigarette manufacturers and their parent companies, alongside tobacco-related organizations, with allegations asserting that the defendants were aware of nicotine's addictive nature and the health risks of smoking since at least 1954. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants manipulated nicotine levels and disseminated misleading information to downplay the dangers of smoking, employing organizations like the Council for Tobacco Research and the Tobacco Institute to promote deceptive narratives under the guise of objective research. The case is remitted for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's modifications.
The complaint includes multiple causes of action against defendant manufacturers, highlighting failures to warn (both pre- and post-1969 Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act), fraud, negligent misrepresentation, defective design, strict product liability, and breach of warranties. Plaintiffs assert that the parent companies are liable due to their involvement in the design, marketing, and sale of cigarettes, as well as their participation in a collective effort to mislead the public about smoking dangers, along with vicarious liability for subsidiary actions. Specifically, CTR is claimed to be directly involved in cigarette marketing and design, alongside TI, which also engaged in deceptive practices.
The plaintiffs propose two classes: one for individuals in New York who smoked the defendants’ cigarettes and developed lung or throat cancer, and another for the estates and relatives of deceased smokers. The Supreme Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for class certification. However, the court found the record insufficient to fully assess class certification prerequisites and recommended limited discovery or a mini-hearing to address this issue.
The court suggested that plaintiffs present proof of material facts for trial concerning class certification, allowing the court to distinguish between material and non-material issues. The appellants contend that the 1969 Act preempts various claims post-1969, referencing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, which determined that common-law claims cannot impose requirements related to smoking and health that conflict with the Act.
Plaintiffs' claims for damages related to failure to warn after 1969 are preempted, referencing Cipollone v. Liggett Group. Additionally, causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, implied warranty of merchantability, and implied warranty of fitness that arose post-1969 and are linked to failure to warn or advertising that neutralizes federally mandated warnings are also preempted. However, claims based on fraud and deceit are not preempted. The complaint, when considering the factual allegations as true and granting all favorable inferences to the plaintiffs, is deemed sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a)(7) and sufficiently detailed to withstand dismissal under CPLR 3016 (b). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino, and Goldstein, JJ., concur.
