of civil proceedings, as well as for violations of the Donnelly Act, the New York antitrust statute. These claims, however, fail for many of the same reasons as they do when fashioned as federal antitrust claims. First, as the parties agree, the Don-nelly Act is modelled on and governed by the same standards as the federal antitrust laws. State of New York v. Mobil Oil Corp., 38 N.Y.2d 460, 463, 381 N.Y.S.2d 426, 428, 344 N.E.2d 357, 359 (1976). Plaintiffs have suggested no reason why or how the policies underlying the Donnelly Act would be ill-served by the application of Noerr immunity to these claims. Accordingly, Noerr must apply in much the same manner to immunize claims based on non-sham litigation. Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v. Acmat Corp., 700 F.2d 98, 101-02 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). Defendants also argue that other state
holding unfair trade practices and consumer protection law applicable to residential leases recognizing the statelaw privilege because there was no federal claim to which the records sought would be relevant holding that a cause of action exists under the connecticut unfair trade practices act for violations of the cuipa holding that plaintiffs statelaw claim was completely preempted under federal statute even though relief soughtan injunctionwas not available under the federal statute holding connecticut statelaw unfair trade practices claim to be subject to noerr immunity because connecticut statute was coextensive with federal statute subject to noerr