In an antitrust action, the Court of Appeals construed the Donnelly Act, New York’s version of the Sherman Act, and reached two significant conclusions. First, to survive a motion to dismiss a plaintiff must allege market power in the relevant market in which defendants are alleged to have restrained trade. Second, an overseas conspiracy must have a very close nexus to harm to competition in the state for it to fall within the reach of New York’s statute.
In a criminal action, the court endorsed the use of expert testimony on false confessions in appropriate circumstances where relevant to the facts of the individual and interrogation at issue. And in an action arising out of an employment agreement, the court upheld a jury verdict that found an oral agreement had been made and determined that the agreement was enforceable under the General Obligations Law.
Donnelly Act
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
