case, because there is evidence that defendants have targeted consumers generally through standard form contracts, which were also administered in a standardized manner. See Kurschner v. Mass. Cas. Ins. Co., No. 08-CV-1011 (JFB), 2009 WL 537504, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2009) (“Where, as here, a defendant allegedly enters into 'contractual relationship[s] with customers nationwide,’ via a standard form contract and has allegedly committed the challenged actions in its dealings with multiple insureds, such behavior plausibly affects the public generally and, therefore, plaintiff has sufficiently pled the requirement of 'consumer-oriented' conduct within the meaning of Section 349 ... ”) (collecting cases); cf. Riordan v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 977 F.2d 47, 51-51 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). 42 . The Court notes that plaintiffs never
holding that admonishment for breach of insurers obligation to insured is not applicable to equitable share dispute between insurers holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss holding gbl 349 applicable to insurers where plaintiff demonstrated that similar practices had been employed by defendant against multiple insureds in the general public holding that insureds criminal convictions were sufficient to preclude relitigation of the issue of the insureds subjective intent for purposes of evaluating the insurers duty to defend