Semon v Pebble Corp.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint, holding that New York City's cashless-ban provision does not create an implied private right of action. The court concluded that plaintiffs may still pursue common-law claims such as breach of contract and unjust enrichment, but declined to consider leave to amend because plaintiffs had not sought that relief in Supreme Court.

Holdings

1. Administrative Code § 20-840 does not afford plaintiffs or putative class members a private right of action.
2. Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend the complaint to add breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment causes of action was not properly before the Appellate Division because plaintiffs had not sought leave to amend below.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Administrative Code of the City of New York § 20-840 creates an implied private right of action for customers allegedly overcharged in cash transactions.
2. Whether plaintiffs could obtain leave on appeal to amend their complaint to add breach-of-contract and unjust-enrichment claims when they had not sought leave to amend in the trial court.

Disposition

affirmed