www.FreeLegalResearch.com | www.FreeMPRE.com | www.FreeBarReview.com

www.ManhattanLawSchool.com | www.EnPassant.com | www.LawTV.com 

www.LawSchool100.com | www.LawCentral.com | www.BarPlus.com | www.ChessLaw.com






SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF ALBANY

----------------------------------------x Index No. 4750-07              

JEFFREY PROVENZANO, THOMAS BENJAMIN and

MONICA AGOSTO, on behalf of themselves

and all others similarly situated,              

                                               AMENDED                                                            COMPLAINT                                     

                      Plaintiffs               

 

              -against-

 

THE THOMSON CORPORATION and WEST

PUBLISHING CORPORATION d/b/a BARBRI,

 

                                                

                      Defendants

 

----------------------------------------x

 

                      I. Preliminary Statement

 


     1. The above-named Plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the class they seek to represent, bring this action for the wrongful practices of the above-named Defendants. Said Defendants each violated the laws of the State of New York by engaging in deceptive trade practices and fraudulent conduct which caused the Plaintiffs, and the class they seek to represent, to purchase the “BAR/BRI” New York bar review products and to pay inflated, unjustifiable prices for same. The actions of the Defendants herein constitute fraudulent inducement under New York law and constitute violations of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law. Plaintiffs bring the herein action pursuant to Article 9 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules which authorizes the maintenance of class actions in the State of New York.

 

                           II. Jurisdiction

 

    2. Jurisdiction is proper in that the herein action is based upon violations of the laws of the State of New York.

 

                             III. Venue

 

    3. Venue is proper in that the Defendants are each doing

business in Albany County and in that the Plaintiffs each paid for the subject bar review course complained of herein in Albany County.

 

                            IV.  Parties

 

     4. The Plaintiff Jeffrey Provenzano (“Provenzano”) is a

natural person residing in Ulster County, New York. The Plaintiff Provenzano is a 2006 graduate of Albany law school. In 2006 the Plaintiff Provenzano purchased the full BAR/BRI bar review course in Albany County in preparation for undertaking the New York State bar examination. In 2006 the Plaintiff Provenzano sat for the New York State bar examination which was administered in Albany County.

 

     5. The Plaintiff Thomas Benjamin (“Benjamin”) is a


natural person residing in Greene County, New York. The Plaintiff Benjamin is a 2005 graduate of Albany law school. In 2005 the Plaintiff Benjamin completed the purchase of the full BAR/BRI bar review course in Albany County in preparation for undertaking the New York State bar examination. In 2005 the Plaintiff Benjamin sat for the New York State bar examination which was administered in Albany County.

 

     6. The Plaintiff Monica Agosto (“Agosto”) is a natural person residing in Greene County, New York. The Plaintiff Agosto is a 2005 graduate of Albany law school. In 2005 the Plaintiff Agosto purchased the full BAR/BRI bar review course in Albany County in preparation for undertaking the New York State bar examination. In 2005 the Plaintiff Agosto sat for the New York State bar examination which was administered in Albany County.

 

     7. The Defendant The Thomson Corporation (“TTC”) is a

corporation organized under the Business Corporations Act of Ontario, Canada. The Defendant TCC has a principal place of business located in Metro Center, One Station Plaza, Stamford, Connecticut. Upon information and belief, the Defendant TCC is authorized by the New York Secretary of State to do business in the State of New York. As part of said authorization the Defendant TCC regularly does business in Albany County.

 

     8. The Defendant West Publishing Corporation (“West”) is a


wholly-own subsidiary of the Defendant TCC and is also known as “West Group”. The Defendant West does business as BAR/BRI. BAR/BRI is a commercial bar review which is marketed and sold to persons who are law school graduates and who intend to take the bar exam in each state of the United States including the State of New York.

The Defendant West maintains a principal place of business in the State of Minnesota which is located at 610 Opperman Drive, St. Paul Minnesota. Upon information and belief, the Defendant West is authorized by the New York Secretary of State to do business in the State of New York. As part of said authorization the Defendant West regularly does business in Albany County. The Defendant West is owned and operated by the Defendant TTC.

 

     9. As used heretofore herein the term “BAR/BRI” refers to each Defendant named herein.

 

             IV. Facts Relating To Named Plaintiffs

 

     10. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the facts set forth

in paragraphs “1" through “9" with the same force and effect as if stated at length herein.

    

     11. As law students who attended a law school in the State of New York, each of the Plaintiffs are part of a large group of persons who, from the several months prior to their very first day of entry as law students, have been barraged, bombarded and solicited based upon policies and practices invoked by the Defendants via their operation of the BAR/BRI bar review course.

 


     12. Said barragement, bombardment and solicitation was effected via the use of common written advertisements, in the various forms described below, which were and are directed and intended for review by every law student attending a law school located within the State of New York.

 

     13. Said advertisements include pamphlets distributed by

BAR/BRI throughout the various New York law schools by student representatives hired by BAR/BRI.

 

     14. The advertising pamphlets referenced in paragraph 13 are commonly distributed en masse to law students through various methods including via placement in student “mailboxes” which are typically located in the various New York law schools.

 

     15. The pamphlets are also distributed to law students from

tables which are typically set up by the BAR/BRI student representatives in law school cafeterias and law school hallways as same are located in the various New York law schools.

 

     16. In addition to the advertising pamphlets described 

heretofore herein BAR/BRI posters are hung on public posting boards which are typically located throughout the various law schools located within the State of New York.

 

      17. In addition to pamphlet and poster board advertising,


BAR/BRI also places large, display advertisements in the various school newspapers which each New York law school publishes.  Also, BAR/BRI purchasers display advertisements in “The National Jurist”, a popular magazine which is distributed in every law school in American including each of the law schools locates within the State of New York.

 

     18. In addition to the pamphlet advertising, poster board advertising and newspaper and magazine advertising described heretofore herein the various BAR/BRI representatives also engage in oral presentations advancing the BAR/BRI program via typically addressing law students prior to the commencement of class. At said addresses BAR/BRI advertising pamphlets are distributed.

 

     19. In addition to the pamphlet advertising, poster board advertising, newspaper and magazine advertising and pre-class advertising described heretofore herein BAR/BRI invites law students to free food and drink gatherings wherein the BAR/BRI program is further advanced and wherein BAR/BRI advertising pamphlets are distributed.

 

     20. In addition to the pamphlet advertising, poster board advertising, newspaper and magazine advertising, pre-class advertising and free food and drink gatherings described heretofore herein BAR/BRI maintains a website which is accessed via “www.barbri.com”. Said website address is set forth in all of the advertising methods set forth above and is easily accessible to any law student attending any law school located within the State of New York.


     21. In addition to the pamphlet advertising, poster board advertising, newspaper and magazine advertising, pre-class advertising, free food and drink gatherings and website described heretofore herein BAR/BRI conducts a one week pre-law school session for those first year law students preparing to attend one of the law schools located within the State of New York. Said sessions occur at various weekly intervals at various locations during the several months before the commencement of first year classes. In conjunction with said pre-law school offering BAR/BRI maintains a website which may be accessed via “lawschoolprep.com”.  On this website law students are immediately made aware of the status of BAR/BRI as the largest bar review course in America. At these pre-law school sessions, the alleged necessity to ultimately purchase a BAR/BRI New York bar review product is zealously advanced by the administrators and the law professors who participate in the BAR/BRI pre-law school sessions.

   

     21A. During the several months before entering law school

first year students receive mail correspondences from BAR/BRI advertising the BAR/BRI pre-law sessions. In conjunction with said mailings BAR/BRI obtains mailing lists from sources presently unknown.

 


     22. BAR/BRI directs its advertising at law students commencing  from a time period beginning during the several months before their entrance into law school. Indeed, BAR/BRI aggressively encourages first year law students to purchase the full BAR/BRI New York bar review course so as to “lock-in” a price which will be lower than the price charged by BAR/BRI for the full review at the time the particular law student graduates law school and is ready to attempt the New York State bar examination. In conjunction therewith BAR/BRI invokes their advertising strategies and representations, as same are described heretofore herein, to those first year law students.

 

     23. BAR/BRI undertakes its advertising knowing full well that the law school experience constitutes a setting wherein law students attending any of the law schools located within the State of New York are highly impressionable and concerned with passing the New York State bar examination, arguably the most difficult bar examination in the United States. Furthermore, BAR/BRI understands and exploits the “boot camp” experience common to every law school in the State of New York wherein law students are closely grouped together for extended periods of time, especially in the first year, and where common themes run strongly amongst anxious and impression persons.

 


     24. In sum, it is virtually impossible for a law student attending a law school located within the State of New York, such as the 3 class representatives named herein, to avoid ingestion of the massive BAR/BRI representations advanced via the BAR/BRI advertising policies and practices. As Casey Stengel would promote the New York Mets in their early days by advancing that the words from the mouths of babes born in New York is  “Metsie, Metsie, Metsie” (see Exhibit “A” attached hereto), BAR/BRI insures that the first and continuous words heard in the ears of persons attending law schools located within the State of New York is “BAR/BRI, BAR/BRI, BAR/BRI”.

 

     25. The common and typical theme set forth in all of the


the written advertisements and written advertising methods (i.e. the BAR/BRI website) used by BAR/BRI is to falsely and deceptively convey the mantra that a person graduating from a New York law school must purchase a BAR/BRI bar review course in order to have any chance of passing the New York State bar examination. The written advertisements disseminated by BAR/BRI, as particularly described heretofore herein, contain and convey to law students attending a New York law school statements which falsely imply that it is absolutely imperative for a bar candidate to enroll in the BAR/BRI program in order to pass the New York State bar examination of the particular candidate’s choice. In regard to the herein action said statements are designated to be in conjunction with the New York state bar examination. These false statements constitute deceptive acts and practices which fraudulently induce graduates of a law school located within the State of New York who are intending to attempt to pass the New York State bar examination to purchase the full BAR/BRI bar review course or to purchase portions thereof or other BAR/BRI bar review products at artificially inflated prices and to purchase unneeded BAR/BRI products. Said purchases are made under the false belief created by BAR/BRI’s written advertisements that a bar candidate cannot pass the New York State bar examination unless he or she purchases a BAR/BRI New York bar review product. Importantly, the BAR/BRI advertising policies intentionally omit important, material facts concerning a) the administration of the New York State bar examination including that a guaranteed number of persons attempting the State bar examination will fail the New York State bar examination and that no BAR/BRI product can alter this fact and b) the availability of other comparable full and supplemental bar review courses and products offered to persons attending a law school located within the State of New York.

 

     26. An example of the herein complained of improper policies and practices are certain statements contained in the BAR/BRI website which are reflective of the type of statements which are included in other forms of written advertising disseminated by BAR/BRI and are reflective of the oral statements which are made by representatives hired by BAR/BRI to promote its bar review products.

 

    27. The following statements contained on various portions of the BAR/BRI website are examples of statements contained in the written advertisements used by BAR/BRI (i.e. pamphlets, wall posters, newspaper and magazine ads) which are absolutely and unequivocally fraudulent, false, deceptive and misleading:

               1) “Frequently Asked Questions” a copy of which is

attached hereto as Exhibit “B”-


           FALSE STATEMENT-  Q. Why do I need a bar review course? “The bar exam is different from law school. It is nearly impossible to accumulate the necessary materials, prepare a 2 month study plan and discipline yourself to pass the bar exam without a review course. Additionally, most law students could not take all topics tested on their state’s bar exam in law school. Even if you studied a bar topic in law school, it is generally taught from a different perspective than how it is tested on the bar exam. Enrolling in BAR/BRI provides the experience and expertise of bar exam professionals.”. 

 

     28. The factual truth which refutes the statement “The bar exam is different from law school, as contained in the BAR/BRI website and as set forth in paragraph “27", is that the bar exam is not different from law school. The form of the “multistate” portion of the bar examination, i.e. 200 multiple choice questions wherein the bar candidate is asked to choose the best possible answer from 4 choices, is frequently used by professors at the various New York law schools. Furthermore, the essay portion of the New York State bar examination contains questions which are virtually identical in form and substance to essay questions given on law school examinations in each New York State law school. This statement represents the key to perhaps BAR/BRI’s greatest false implication: That the bar exam is different from the 3-4 year law school experience therefore, we are indispensable, you have no chance of passing without us.

 

     29. The factual truth which refutes the statement “It is


nearly impossible to accumulate the necessary materials, prepare a 2 month study plan and discipline yourself to pass the bar exam without a review course”, as contained in the BAR/BRI website and as set forth in paragraph “27", is that, after completion of the rigorous law school  experience, candidates attempting to pass the New York State bar examination are fully capable of scheduling studying on their own 8 hours per day, seven days per week.

 


     30. The factual truth which refutes the statement “most law students could not take all topics tested on their state’s bar exam”, as contained in the BAR/BRI website and as set forth in paragraph “26" heretofore herein, is that those topics tested on the New York State bar examination are offered in every law school located within the state of New York. The falsity of said statement is further proved by the New York “Subject Frequency Chart” procured from the BAR/BRI website. A copy of same is attached hereto as Exhibit “C”. As confirmed by said chart the New York essays frequently concern the subjects tested on the Multistate, i.e. contracts, criminal law/procedure, torts, real property and federal jurisdiction (civil procedure). These areas of substantive law constitute the core first year law school subjects which are mandated by every A.B.A. approved law school in America, including every law school located within the State of New York. Notwithstanding, it is false, deceptive and misleading to state that most law students could not take all topics tested on their state’s bar exam. In New York, law students have ample time to enroll in elective courses such as wills and trusts, corporations, professional responsibility, New York practice, evidence, partnerships, constitutional law and domestic relations and other areas of New York substantive law which may appear on the New York State bar examination.    

     

    31. The factual truth which refutes the statement that

substantive law is taught from a “different prospective” in law school than how it is tested on a bar exam, as contained in the BAR/BRI website and as set forth in paragraph “26" heretofore herein, is that the requirements for a valid will in New York, the grounds for  divorce in New York, the fiduciary responsibilities of officers and directors in New York, the professional responsibilities of a lawyer practicing in New York, the contents of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, and all those other areas of substantive law which may be tested on the New York State bar examination, are all taught and tested virtually the same on law school questions given by professors teaching at the various New York law schools as is tested on questions which appears on the New York bar examination.

 


     32. A portion of the BAR/BRI website contains written statement which imply that only BAR/BRI “bar exam professionals” can teach how to pass a bar examination. That portion of the BAR/BRI website entitled “Q. Who teaches the BAR/BRI classes?, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “D”, sets forth “BAR/BRI has a national and regional faculty of bar exam specialists. They are experts in teaching for this unique exam and they know how their subjects are tested on the bar. Many of these experts have been teaching for BAR/BRI for more than 30 years.”  In addition thereto that portion of the BAR/BRI website entitled “About the Faculty”, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “E”, sets forth “In our course, you will see and hear the most dynamic bar review lecturers in the country. Our faculty, some of whom are profiled below, have spent countless hours analyzing past bar exams in order to develop strategies for your success.”. These statements are fraudulent, false, deceptive and misleading in that the law school Professors teaching at law schools located within the State of New York, who taught the Plaintiffs and the class defined herein, must know the substantive law tested on the New York State bar examination and must impute that substantive knowledge to their students during class. Thus, the statements set forth in the “Who teaches the BAR/BRI classes”, and the statement these experts have “....spent countless hours analyzing past bar exams in order to develop strategies for your success.” is refuted by the facts set forth herein.

            

      33. The portion of the BAR/BRI website entitled “About

BAR/BRI- A message from Richard J. Convisor, Founder and Chairman”, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “F”, sets forth as follows:


                 “ And of course, when you are ready to tackle the ultimate final exam, your bar exam, BAR/BRI will be there for you with the nation’s most experienced, most personalized, and most up-to-date bar review course. Only BAR/BRI combines comprehensive, yet concise outlines, dynamic law school professors, and the most complete Multistate and Essay Testing programs to give you the best chance of passing your bar exam the first time.

                       

     34. The factual truth which refutes the statement contained in the message from Richard J. Convisor, i.e. “Only BAR/BRI combines comprehensive, yet concise outlines, dynamic law school professors, and the most complete Multistate and Essay Testing programs to give you the best chance of passing your bar exam the first time” is that a simple search reveals other choices for bar candidates in New York, including the “Pieper” bar review and the “PMBR” Multistate bar review course, all of which offer comprehensive, concise outlines, dynamic instructors, and complete Multistate and essay testing.

 

     35. Other fraudulent and deceptive acts engaged in by the Defendants include, but are not limited to, the following:

 


                     A. Forcing the Plaintiffs and the class defined herein to purchase the full BAR/BRI bar review course, thus tying in unneeded other BAR/BRI products such as the BAR/BRI Multistate Review and Essay Writing review when there are other preparation courses for the Multistate and essay portions of the New York State bar examination which are available to persons attempting to pass the New York State bar examination. Most notable and popular is the “PMBR” Multistate Bar Review Course. The Defendants engage in this forced and unnecessary selling with full knowledge that many of their customers are also spending additional money for other courses which are designed to teach how to pass the Multistate and/or essay portions of the New York State Bar examination. Although there are several other supplemental bar review courses, the tying situation stifled other competition. The Defendants otherwise engaged in unconscionable, anti-competitive business conduct in an effort to raise their prices and monopolize the limited New York bar review market. Once the Defendants succeeded in monopolizing the New York bar review market they no longer had a need to insure the best possible product for the money. As a result thereof they charged consumers ultra inflated and unconscionable fees all under the guise that their bar review products are in fact absolutely legitimate and absolutely needed.

Furthermore, by bundling unnecessary products the Defendants stifled other legitimate and better competitors with lower prices.

Furthermore, the Defendants omitted disclosing these material facts in their written advertisements as same are described above.

 


                     B. Advising persons who have failed the New York State bar examination despite purchasing the full BAR/BRI New York bar review course that additional supplemental courses offered by BAR/BRI, such as essay writing and individual tutoring sessions, must be purchased so that these persons can “hone in” on their specific area of weakness when, in fact, these weaknesses should have been confronted and resolved in conjunction with the full BAR/BRI bar review course. Furthermore, the Defendants omitted disclosing these material facts in their written advertisements as same are described above.

 

                        

                AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW SECTION 349

 

    36. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate the facts set froth in paragraphs “1" through “35" with the same force and effect as if stated at length herein.

 

     37. Section 349 of the New York General Business Law makes

unlawful any deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce in the State of New York or in the furnishing of any service in the State of New York.

 


     38. In invoking the massive and continuous dissemination of written advertisements containing uniform fraudulent, false, deceptive and misleading statements set forth so as to a) dupe the Plaintiffs and the class defined below (as factually described heretofore herein) into paying an inflated price for BAR/BRI New York bar review products and b) dupe the Plaintiffs and the class into purchasing unnecessary bar review services and by tying in those unnecessary bar review services to the cost of the full BAR/BRI New York State bar review course and by monopolizing the New York bar review business and in omitting material facts regarding the New York State bar examination and other available bar review courses and omitting facts concerning their monopoly, the Defendants have each violated Section 349 of the New York General Business Law as said acts and omissions are deceptive and occur in the conduct of the business, trade and commerce engaged in by the Defendants and in conjunction with the furnishing of the BAR/BRI bar review service by the Defendants.

 

     39. That the policies and practices complained of herein

were likely to mislead reasonable graduates of law schools located within the State of New York acting reasonably under the circumstances.

 

      40. That the policies and practices complained of herein

include the use of material factual omissions in effort to compel the Plaintiffs and the class to purchase BAR/BRI New York State bar review products.

 

     41. That the Defendants’ respective violations of Section

349 of the New York General Business Law are each willful and knowing.

 

     42. As of result of the Defendants’ violations of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law the Plaintiffs and the class defined herein have each uniformly suffered actual damages in monetary amounts as follows:

 


             a)for those Plaintiffs and class members who purchased only the full BAR/BRI New York bar review course an amount equal to an overcharge of $1,000.00 each;

 

             b)for those Plaintiffs and class members who purchased the full BAR/BRI New York bar review course and any additional supplementary BAR/BRI course intended for the New York State bar examination an amount equal to an overcharge of $1,000.00 each for the full BAR/BRI course and an amount equal to the total sum of the additional BAR/BRI courses.

 

                AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

                     FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

 

 

 

                          

     43. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate paragraphs “1"

through “42" as if stated at length herein.

 

     44. Via their actions set forth heretofore herein the

Defendants knowingly and intentionally misrepresented to the Plaintiffs and to the classes defined herein material facts concerning the nature and administration of the New York State bar examination, the material facts concerning the value of BAR/BRI New York state bar products and the availability and value of other bar review products, and the material facts concerning their monopolization of the New York bar review business.

 

     45. The Defendant’s false promises and representations were intended to deceive the Plaintiffs and the members of the class defined herein as described heretofore herein.


    46. As set forth heretofore herein the Plaintiffs and the members of the class each have been damaged by the Defendants’ knowing and intentional misrepresentations in that said Plaintiffs and class members have each unjustifiably paid excess monies to the Defendants for the purchase of BAR/BRI bar review products and have paid monies to the Defendants for unneeded BAR/BRI products.

 

     47. Said damages are as follows:

 

             a)for those Plaintiffs and class members who purchased only the full BAR/BRI New York bar review course an amount equal to an overcharge of $1,000.00 each;

 

             b)for those Plaintiffs and class members who purchased the full BAR/BRI New York bar review course and any additional supplementary BAR/BRI course intended for the New York State bar examination an amount equal to an overcharge of $1,000.00 each for the full BAR/BRI course and an amount equal to the total sum of the additional BAR/BRI courses.

 

                                  IV. Class Allegations

                          

     48. The Plaintiffs repeat and reiterate paragraphs “1"

through “47" as if stated at length herein.

 


     49. This action is brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who graduated from a law school located within the boundaries of the State of New York and, in regard to the claim for violation of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law as set forth above, during a period commencing from 4 years prior to the filing of the complaint herein, purchased any BAR/BRI product in preparation for the New York State bar examination. In regard to the claims for fraudulent inducement as set forth above all persons who graduated from a law school located within the boundaries of the State of New York and, for period commencing 6 years prior to the filing of the complaint in the herein action, purchased any BAR/BRI bar review product in preparation for the New York State bar examination.

 

     50. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that the

class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.

According to statistics released by the Defendants, the members of the class numbers in the thousands.

 

     51. There are questions of law and fact common to the class,

which common issues predominate over any issues involving only individual class members. The principal issue is whether the Defendants caused the Plaintiffs to suffer actual damages based upon the Defendants’ use of fraudulent and false, deceptive and misleading business trade practices in violation of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law and in violation of the New York law regarding fraudulent inducement.

 


     52. The Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the class members. All are based on the same facts and legal theories.

 

     53. The commonality and typicality of the Plaintiffs claims are further evidenced and legally supported based upon the following facts:

 

                      --All members of the class were exposed to the same fraudulent, false, deceptive and misleading misrepresentations contained in written advertisements disseminated by BAR/BRI;

 

                        --BAR/BRI disseminated different

written advertisements, all of which contained common misrepresentations and which omitted material facts regarding the New York State bar examination, the value of BAR/BRI New York bar review products and the available of other full and supplemental bar review courses and the Defendants’ monopoly regarding the New York bar review business;

 

                         --All members of the class are more

bound together by a mutual interest in the adjudication of the common questions than they are divided by any individual member’s interest in matters peculiar to them;

 

                         --As there exists identical


misrepresentations set forth in different writings viewed by the class members there are no individual questions which could justify denial of class certification herein.

 

                        --Based upon the facts sets forth

heretofore herein reliance by each of the class members can be presumed.

 

     53. The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the class defined herein. The Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in handling class actions. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel have any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue the herein action.

 

     54. Certification of a class is appropriate in that the

Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class defined herein. Furthermore, class certification must be granted herein as CPLR section 901 should be liberally construed by the Court.

 

     WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and in favor of the class for:

 

     A. Certification of the class pursuant to Article 9 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

     B. Actual damages for the Plaintiffs and the class in the form of restitution for the monetary damages described heretofore herein in the amounts set forth heretofore herein.


     C. Actual damages exceeding three times the actual damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and the class pursuant to Sec. 349(h) of the New York General Business Law.

     D. A permanent in injunction against the further exercise by the Defendants of the acts and practices described heretofore herein.

     E. An injunction ordering the termination of the monopoly

created by the Defendants.

    F. Attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs incurred herein.

     G. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

 

 

 

Dated: Haines Falls, New York

       June 26, 2007

 

     

 

                             

                                                                  

                             ROBERT L. ARLEO, ESQ.         

                                  Attorney for the Plaintiffs

    164 Sunset Park Road

    Haines Falls, New York 12436

    (518) 589-5264

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                            EXHIBIT D