Plaintiff's General Business Law § 349 claims were properly dismissed in light of plaintiff's failure to allege deceptive conduct by defendant "likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances" (Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, 85 N.Y.2d 20, 26; see also Stutman v. Chemical Bank, 95 N.Y.2d 24, 29).
Also properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action were plaintiff's breach of contract claims since plaintiff failed to allege the breach of any particular contractual provision (Lebow v. Kakalios, 156 A.D.2d 301; Shields v. School of Law, 77 A.D.2d 867, 868). Moreover, even if the documents to which plaintiff refers could be considered a contract, defendant's alleged activities would not constitute a breach of that contract.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.