Legal Opinion

Smilewicz v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 1, 2011PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CPLR article 9, which authorizes class actions and sets forth the criteria to be considered in granting class action certification, is to be liberally construed (see Dank v Sears Holding Mgt. Corp., 59 AD3d 584 [2009]; Kidd v Delta Funding Corp., 289 AD2d 203 [2001]; Liechtung v Tower Air, 269 AD2d 363 [2000]; Friar v Vanguard Holding Corp., 78 AD2d 83, 91 [1980]). “The determination to grant class action certification rests in the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, ‘and any error should be resolved in favor of allowing the class action’ ” (Kidd v Delta Funding Corp., 289 AD2d at 203,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
  2. Solomon v. Bell Atlantic Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  3. Hazelhurst v. Brita Products Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  4. Ross v. Amrep Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
  5. Morrissey v. Nextel Partners, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Carni v. Continental Home Loans, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Sammut v. PilitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API