Prices for great expectations dating service

Rated 3.81/5 based on 604 customer reviews

§ 394-c), and as a part of the same legislation newly authorized the Attorney General to bring enforcement actions and to seek civil penalties of up to

§ 394-c), and as a part of the same legislation newly authorized the Attorney General to bring enforcement actions and to seek civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation (G. However, such contracts may no longer simply be set aside as contrary to public policy, as was done in the 1991 decision based upon an earlier version of the Dating Service Law (Chassman v. § 394-c [9][a]; see, for example, People by Vacco v. It then follows that the legislature, by adding the “actual damage” language to the statute in 1992 did not erode New York State's commitment to protect consumers from price gouging by dating services. Given the foregoing, it is determined that the claimants are entitled to a full refund as restitutionary damages. If such contracts were to be enforced ․ social referral services would continue to violate the statute with impunity, secure in the knowledge that the only penalty they face will be a reduction in their fee to the statutory limit”). People Resources, supra, 151 Misc.2d at 528-529, 573 N. S.2d 589, given the then existing “statute's silence as to the penalty for non-compliance * * * * public policy demands ․ non-complying contracts be deemed void and unenforceable.

||

§ 394-c), and as a part of the same legislation newly authorized the Attorney General to bring enforcement actions and to seek civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation (G. However, such contracts may no longer simply be set aside as contrary to public policy, as was done in the 1991 decision based upon an earlier version of the Dating Service Law (Chassman v.

§ 394-c [9][a]; see, for example, People by Vacco v. It then follows that the legislature, by adding the “actual damage” language to the statute in 1992 did not erode New York State's commitment to protect consumers from price gouging by dating services.

Given the foregoing, it is determined that the claimants are entitled to a full refund as restitutionary damages. If such contracts were to be enforced ․ social referral services would continue to violate the statute with impunity, secure in the knowledge that the only penalty they face will be a reduction in their fee to the statutory limit”).

People Resources, supra, 151 Misc.2d at 528-529, 573 N. S.2d 589, given the then existing “statute's silence as to the penalty for non-compliance * * * * public policy demands ․ non-complying contracts be deemed void and unenforceable.

,000 for each violation (G. However, such contracts may no longer simply be set aside as contrary to public policy, as was done in the 1991 decision based upon an earlier version of the Dating Service Law (Chassman v. § 394-c [9][a]; see, for example, People by Vacco v. It then follows that the legislature, by adding the “actual damage” language to the statute in 1992 did not erode New York State's commitment to protect consumers from price gouging by dating services. Given the foregoing, it is determined that the claimants are entitled to a full refund as restitutionary damages. If such contracts were to be enforced ․ social referral services would continue to violate the statute with impunity, secure in the knowledge that the only penalty they face will be a reduction in their fee to the statutory limit”). People Resources, supra, 151 Misc.2d at 528-529, 573 N. S.2d 589, given the then existing “statute's silence as to the penalty for non-compliance * * * * public policy demands ․ non-complying contracts be deemed void and unenforceable.

prices for great expectations dating service-35

Because of the similarities of these two cases, a consolidated decision is issued. § 394-c[1][a], “ ‘social referral service’ shall include any service for a fee providing matching of members of the opposite sex, by use of computer or any other means, for the purpose of dating and general social contact”). S.2d 139 [3rd Dept.2000], “ [s]ince the trial court is presented with the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses testifying before it and to assess their credibility * * * deference will be accorded to its findings unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” [citations omitted] ). Based upon the testimony, the court determines that each claimant would not have signed a contract containing terms violating applicable law, had she known of her rights and, accordingly, each claimant is entitled to a refund of the final .00 balance at issue, which finding achieves substantial justice in these Small Claims matters (N. Finally, the court considers whether it should exercise its judicial discretion to report the activity found to violate applicable law to appropriate governmental authorities, which in this case would be to the New York State Attorney General's Consumer Fraud Unit, as well as the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (G. Although “[n]o ․ rule has been adopted as to what is required if a judge receives information indicating that a litigant or witness appears to be guilty of unlawful conduct”, it has been recognized that “as a general rule judges are granted the discretion, under the proper circumstances, ․ to report instances of illegal conduct revealed in the course of proceedings before the judge” (New York State Office of Court Administration's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion 03-110, August 13, 2004). A failure to return personal materials could well lead to adverse consequences outside the scope of this litigation. § 394-c[9][c], “In cities having a population over one million, the provisions of this section may be enforced concurrently with the attorney general by the director of a local or municipal consumer affairs office”). Claimant Roe signed a ,790 contract for a term of 36 months, which was eventually extended to a total duration of 54 months. Prior to the issuance of a judgment, the name of the defendant in each case is amended to reflect that the defendant Great Expectations is also known as GE Management Group of NY, Inc., as indicated in the written contracts. 2 [a] ), and that the defendant “will provide zero number of social referrals” and “is not promising to furnish the Member with any social referrals and the Member does not desire or expect the Company to furnish social referrals” (para. The text of the personal shopper membership paragraph does not identify what additional services would be provided nor set forth any assurances regarding introductions (para. Claimant Doe signed a

Because of the similarities of these two cases, a consolidated decision is issued. § 394-c[1][a], “ ‘social referral service’ shall include any service for a fee providing matching of members of the opposite sex, by use of computer or any other means, for the purpose of dating and general social contact”).

S.2d 139 [3rd Dept.2000], “ [s]ince the trial court is presented with the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses testifying before it and to assess their credibility * * * deference will be accorded to its findings unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” [citations omitted] ). Based upon the testimony, the court determines that each claimant would not have signed a contract containing terms violating applicable law, had she known of her rights and, accordingly, each claimant is entitled to a refund of the final $25.00 balance at issue, which finding achieves substantial justice in these Small Claims matters (N. Finally, the court considers whether it should exercise its judicial discretion to report the activity found to violate applicable law to appropriate governmental authorities, which in this case would be to the New York State Attorney General's Consumer Fraud Unit, as well as the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (G. Although “[n]o ․ rule has been adopted as to what is required if a judge receives information indicating that a litigant or witness appears to be guilty of unlawful conduct”, it has been recognized that “as a general rule judges are granted the discretion, under the proper circumstances, ․ to report instances of illegal conduct revealed in the course of proceedings before the judge” (New York State Office of Court Administration's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion 03-110, August 13, 2004).

A failure to return personal materials could well lead to adverse consequences outside the scope of this litigation. § 394-c[9][c], “In cities having a population over one million, the provisions of this section may be enforced concurrently with the attorney general by the director of a local or municipal consumer affairs office”).

Claimant Roe signed a $3,790 contract for a term of 36 months, which was eventually extended to a total duration of 54 months.

Prior to the issuance of a judgment, the name of the defendant in each case is amended to reflect that the defendant Great Expectations is also known as GE Management Group of NY, Inc., as indicated in the written contracts. 2 [a] ), and that the defendant “will provide zero number of social referrals” and “is not promising to furnish the Member with any social referrals and the Member does not desire or expect the Company to furnish social referrals” (para. The text of the personal shopper membership paragraph does not identify what additional services would be provided nor set forth any assurances regarding introductions (para. Claimant Doe signed a $1,000 contract for a term of six months. Had the contract set forth a minimum number of referrals, the matter might require consideration of G. Every such contract shall set forth in the contract and in the bill of rights the manner in which such services provider determines its cancellation fee pursuant to this subdivision.”Upon any set of facts, “ancillary services” provided (G.

||

Because of the similarities of these two cases, a consolidated decision is issued. § 394-c[1][a], “ ‘social referral service’ shall include any service for a fee providing matching of members of the opposite sex, by use of computer or any other means, for the purpose of dating and general social contact”). S.2d 139 [3rd Dept.2000], “ [s]ince the trial court is presented with the unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses testifying before it and to assess their credibility * * * deference will be accorded to its findings unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record” [citations omitted] ). Based upon the testimony, the court determines that each claimant would not have signed a contract containing terms violating applicable law, had she known of her rights and, accordingly, each claimant is entitled to a refund of the final $25.00 balance at issue, which finding achieves substantial justice in these Small Claims matters (N. Finally, the court considers whether it should exercise its judicial discretion to report the activity found to violate applicable law to appropriate governmental authorities, which in this case would be to the New York State Attorney General's Consumer Fraud Unit, as well as the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (G. Although “[n]o ․ rule has been adopted as to what is required if a judge receives information indicating that a litigant or witness appears to be guilty of unlawful conduct”, it has been recognized that “as a general rule judges are granted the discretion, under the proper circumstances, ․ to report instances of illegal conduct revealed in the course of proceedings before the judge” (New York State Office of Court Administration's Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics Opinion 03-110, August 13, 2004). A failure to return personal materials could well lead to adverse consequences outside the scope of this litigation. § 394-c[9][c], “In cities having a population over one million, the provisions of this section may be enforced concurrently with the attorney general by the director of a local or municipal consumer affairs office”). Claimant Roe signed a $3,790 contract for a term of 36 months, which was eventually extended to a total duration of 54 months. Prior to the issuance of a judgment, the name of the defendant in each case is amended to reflect that the defendant Great Expectations is also known as GE Management Group of NY, Inc., as indicated in the written contracts. 2 [a] ), and that the defendant “will provide zero number of social referrals” and “is not promising to furnish the Member with any social referrals and the Member does not desire or expect the Company to furnish social referrals” (para. The text of the personal shopper membership paragraph does not identify what additional services would be provided nor set forth any assurances regarding introductions (para. Claimant Doe signed a $1,000 contract for a term of six months. Had the contract set forth a minimum number of referrals, the matter might require consideration of G. Every such contract shall set forth in the contract and in the bill of rights the manner in which such services provider determines its cancellation fee pursuant to this subdivision.”Upon any set of facts, “ancillary services” provided (G.

,000 contract for a term of six months. Had the contract set forth a minimum number of referrals, the matter might require consideration of G. Every such contract shall set forth in the contract and in the bill of rights the manner in which such services provider determines its cancellation fee pursuant to this subdivision.”Upon any set of facts, “ancillary services” provided (G.

Leave a Reply