Consumer Class Actions in New York - New York City Bar Association

Id. at 253-254 (Citations omitted). The court concluded that, while the costs of arbitrating in
the designated forum was high, they were not so Aegregiously oppressive@ as to deem
the clause unconscionable or to cause the contract to unreasonably favor one party. Id. at
255.
Carnegie v. H&R Block, Inc., 180 Misc.2d 67 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.Co. 1999), also
considered the effect of an arbitration clause on a putative class action, but in a wholly
different context. In Carnegie, defendants inserted the clause into a standard form contract
after the Carnegie action was commenced, but before the class certification. Id. at 68. The
clause provided that the parties to the contract would submit their disputes to arbitration
upon the election of either party and were barred from proceeding by class action except by
mutual consent. Id. The clause did not inform customers of the pending class action and
that they were waiving their rights to participate in it once they signed on the dotted line.
Holding the arbitration clause unenforceable, the court wrote:
Id. at 72.
[f]or Block to require its customers to sign a form stating, inter
alia, that ANo class actions are permitted without the consent
of the parties . . .@ and that their >ERO= meaning Block is a
party to this arbitration provision without disclosing either the
pendency of this action . . . or that Block has already refused
its consent to class certification, is patently deceptive.
In Hayes v. County Bank, 185 Misc. 2d 414 (Sup. Ct. Queens Co. 2000), defendant
moved for an order compelling arbitration of plaintiffs= claims in a putative class action
arising out of fees charged by defendant in connection with Apay day loans.@ Plaintiffs
32