Melito & Adolfsen P.C., New York (Michael F. Panayotou of counsel), for appellants.

Wasserman Grubin & Rogers, LLP, New York (Richard Wasserman of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about June 13, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the third cause of action alleging violation of General Business Law § 349, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted.

This is essentially a private contract dispute unique to the parties (see e.g. New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 320, 639 N.Y.S.2d 283, 662 N.E.2d 763 [1995] ). Even if, arguendo, defendant Architecture Work, P.C. (Archwork) engaged in consumer-oriented conduct by placing statements on its website, those statements were not "likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances" ( Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension

Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, 85 N.Y.2d 20, 26, 623 N.Y.S.2d 529, 647 N.E.2d 741 [1995] ); instead, they were mere puffery (see e.g. MMCT, LLC v. JTR Coll. Point, LLC, 122 A.D.3d 497, 498, 997 N.Y.S.2d 374 [1st Dept.2014] ). Furthermore, even if the statements on Archwork's website were deceptive, they did not cause plaintiff's injury. Rather, plaintiff's alleged injury was a result of specific acts and omissions by the individual defendant, such as failing to provide constructible drawings, re-designing the apartment's windows and doors without authorization, and failing to coordinate the project.

ACOSTA, P.J., MANZANET–DANIELS, GISCHE, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ., concur.