.practice’ sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 349.”); accord, Saterson v. Planet Ins. Co., No. 93-CV-6885, 1994 WL 689084, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 1994). The case law governing a lawsuit under section 349, however, makes clear (as Riordan I suggests) that, to prevail under that provision, a plaintiff must adduce evidence that the defendant’s conduct is injurious to “the public at large.” See Rior-dan I, 756 F.Supp. at 739 (denying the motion to dismiss submitted by the insurance-company defendant where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant promulgated a policy regarding claim settlement that was “designed to deceive certain categories of policyholders”); see also Exxonmo-bil Inter-Am., Inc. v. Advanced Info. Eng’g Servs., Inc., 328 F.Supp.2d 443, 447 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>); N.Y. Univ. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308,
holding that both lanham act false advertising claim and a false advertising claim made under section 349 or section 350 require a showing that the advertisement was false or misleading holding that treble damages are appropriate under ohio law when the seller engages in an unconscionable practice or deceptive act holding that recovery under the north carolina unfair and deceptive trade practices act  is limited to those situations when a plaintiff can show that plaintiff detrimentally relied upon a statement or misrepresentation and he or she suffered actual injury as a proximate result of defendants deceptive statement or misrepresentation  holding that to state a claim under section 349 a plaintiff must allege 1 a deceptive consumeroriented act or practice which is misleading in a material respect and 2 injury resulting from such an act citing andre strishak  assocs pc v hewlett packard co 300 ad2d 608 609 752 nys2d 400 2d dept 2002 holding that to state a subsection 1962a claim plaintiffs must allege a use or investment injury that is distinct from any injury resulting from the racketeering predicate acts themselves