or similar combination is necessary for a violation to be established. Mehtani v. NY Life Insurance Co, 145 A.D.2d 90, 537 N.Y.S.2d 800, 803 (1st Dept 1989). Assembly Debate Transcripts, Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant's Reply Memorandum in support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings, Exhibit C, 94 Civ. 4850, Docket #16.
State court rulings on the subject are conflicting. See generally Holly v. Pennysaver Corp, 98 A.D.2d 570, 471 N.Y.S.2d 611, 613 (2nd Dept 1984); Mehtani v. NY Life Insurance Co, 145 A.D.2d 90, 537 N.Y.S.2d 800, 803 (1st Dept 1989); West v. Mohawk Commercial Carriers, 183 A.D.2d 182, 589 N.Y.S.2d 218, 219 (3d Dept 1992); Harvey v. NYRAC, 813 F. Supp. 206, 212 (EDNY 1993).
It would be inappropriate to construe a statute presenting significant ambiguities based on a bare record providing no indication as to what kind of factual basis, if any, for the alleged violation is present. Adequately detailed allegations or evidence is particularly important in dealing with a case partially of first impression. In particular, information concerning the nature of the allegedly illegal conduct is required in order to evaluate whether or not a "boycott" is essential to a finding of violation by a corporate entity, and if so what scope of refusals to deal are necessary to constitute a boycott.
Because the eighth counterclaim fails to provide sufficient information to allege a violation of the statute, it is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). An amended counterclaim may be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of this memorandum order.
Dated: White Plains, New York
January 12, 1995
/s/ John S. Martin, U.S.D.J. for
VINCENT L. BRODERICK, U.S.D.J.