Opinion
February 22, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action is granted, and the remaining cause of action is severed.
The plaintiffs' residence was damaged in a fire which occurred on March 5, 1990. The plaintiffs subsequently submitted a claim to the defendant insurer. That claim was ultimately denied. The plaintiffs then commenced this action, asserting causes of action to recover damages for breach of the insurance contract and violation of General Business Law § 349.
General Business Law § 349, a consumer protection statute, prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of a business or furnishing of services. To constitute a violation of the statute, the deceptive acts or practices must be of a recurring nature which affect the public interest (see, Genesco Entertainment v. Koch, 593 F. Supp. 743; Quail Ridge Assocs. v Chemical Bank, 162 A.D.2d 917). The absence of any such allegations in the plaintiffs' complaint requires dismissal of the second cause of action (see, H20 Swimwear v. Lomas, 164 A.D.2d 804; Rubin v. Telemet Am., 698 F. Supp. 447). Even if the additional allegations contained in counsel's opposing affirmation are considered, the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate how those acts constitute a violation of General Business Law § 349 (see, Waste Distillation Tech. v. Blasland Bouck Engrs., 136 A.D.2d 633; Azby Brokerage v. Allstate Ins. Co., 681 F. Supp. 1084). Bracken, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Altman, JJ., concur.