confusion by mischaracterizing Delmonico’s of Southampton as an ‘offshoot’ of Delmonico’s flagship New York City location”). Further, they allege in non-conclu-sory fashion that Defendants’ alleged misuses of the DELMONICO’S name actually did cause consumer confusion. See, e.g., AC ¶ 71 (“For example, several consumer reviews on public websites such as Yelp reflect that consumers believe that Delmonico’s Kitchen is affiliated with Ocinomled’s famous Delmonico’s restaurant.”). Defendants rely for their argument on Securitron, in which the Second Circuit held that under § 349, “[i]t is clear that the gravamen of the complaint must be consumer injury or harm to the public interest.” 65 F.3d at 264 (internal quotation marks and citation omit lub, Inc., 704 F.Supp.2d 305 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (<HOLDING>); Houbigant, Inc. v. ACB Mercantile, Inc., 914
holding that concurrent use of same mark on similar product was sufficient to demonstrate a likelihood of confusion holding that plaintiff was likely to succeed on merits of  349 claim premised on likelihood of confusion between marks holding that even several isolated incidents of actual confusion are insufficient to support a finding of likelihood of confusion holding that a defendant must show actual prejudice to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim holding that same likelihood of confusion test applied in the context of trademarks also applies to certification marks