Dillon v. U-A Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
91 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 2008)
- Newman v. RCN Telecom Services, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2006)
- BMG Direct Marketing, Inc. v. Peake (Tex. 2005)
- Leder v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc. (2d Cir. 2015)
- Wells Fargo Bank, National Association v. Deerbrook Mall, LLC (District Court, S.D. Texas 2021)
- Dubrow v. Herman & Beinin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Trendsetter HR, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (In re Trendsetter HR, LLC) (District Court, N.D. Texas 2019)
- Vigilant Insurance Co. v. Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America (District Court, S.D. New York 2017)
- Carter v. CIOX Health, LLC (District Court, W.D. New York 2017)
- McCracken v. Verisma Systems, Inc. (District Court, W.D. New York 2015)
- In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2015)
- Western Heritage Insurance v. Century Surety Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- Spiro ex rel. Estate of Torres v. Healthport Technologies, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2014)
- Mazzei v. Money Store (District Court, S.D. New York 2012)
- Fink v. Time Warner Cable (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)
- Spirit Locker, Inc. v. Evo Direct, LLC (District Court, E.D. New York 2010)
- Spagnola v. Chubb Corp. (District Court, S.D. New York 2010)
- Brissenden v. Time Warner Cable (New York Supreme Court 2009)
- Gila, LLC v. Kapsch Trafficcom USA, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2025)
- Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Alkermes Plc (Fed. Cir. 2025)
- Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. American Re-Insurance Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- WFE Ventures, Inc. v. GBD Lake Placid, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Weyant v. The Phia Group LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- Dubrow v. Herman & Beinin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority (N.Y. 2017)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff, a customer of defendant cable television company, commenced this purported class action for compensatory and punitive damages challenging the $5 late fee she paid to defendant for her late payments. The complaint alleges that, although defendant in its promotional materials characterized the late fee as an administrative fee intended to be a reasonable estimate of its costs resulting from customers’ late payments and nonpayments, it was an unlawful penalty bearing no relation to defendant’s actual costs incurred in servicing such payments, and plaintiff would not have paid the fee had she known the true facts. Supreme Court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
We agree with both lower courts that the voluntary payment doctrine bars plaintiff’s complaint. That common-law doctrine bars recovery of payments voluntarily made with full knowledge of the facts, and in the absence of fraud or mistake of material fact or law (see Gimbel Bros. v Brook Shopping Ctrs., 118 AD2d 532, 535-536 [1986]). Here, no fraud or mistake is alleged in that, according to the complaint, plaintiff knew she would be charged a $5 late fee if she did not make timely payment. Alleged mischaracterization of a $5 late fee as an administrative fee does not overcome application of the voluntary payment doctrine.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and Read concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.