Stern v. Bluestone

Summary

The New York Court of Appeals held that unsolicited facsimiles titled “Attorney Malpractice Report” were informational messages, not unsolicited advertisements under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that any incidental promotion of the sender’s legal services did not convert the reports into prohibited advertisements, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The facsimiles were informational messages rather than unsolicited advertisements because their primary content concerned attorney-malpractice topics and they did not promote commercial products or services. Any incidental promotion of Bluestone's legal services did not convert the communications into advertisements.
2. The Court of Appeals could not search the record and grant summary judgment to Bluestone because Bluestone had not cross-moved for summary judgment in Supreme Court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bluestone's informational facsimiles concerning attorney malpractice were unsolicited advertisements under the TCPA.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals could grant summary judgment to Bluestone, a nonmoving party, after reversing the judgment in favor of Stern.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded