Legal Opinion
Stutman v. Chemical Bank
New York Court of Appeals
Decided May 18, 2000PublishedCited by 402 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Chief Judge Kaye.
This case requires us to determine whether a $275 bank fee assessed in connection with the refinancing of a homeowner’s loan constituted a deceptive practice under General Business Law § 349. We hold that it did not, and we therefore affirm the Appellate Division order dismissing plaintiffs’ suit.
In November 1991, plaintiff Michael Stutman and his wife, plaintiff Jeanette Rodriguez, borrowed $175,000 from defendant Chemical Bank (now merged into the Chase Manhattan Bank) to finance the purchase of a cooperative apartment. The loan was secured by…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Gaidon v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by402 opinions
- Nick's Garage, Inc. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2017
- Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Orlander v. Staples, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2015
- Crawford v. Franklin Credit Management Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
- Conboy v. AT & T Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001
397 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.