7/28/2019 Summation Mock Trial 2013

1/2

Your Honor, if I may quote Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank,

N.A. 1995, The Court of Appeals held that to state a cause of action under GBL 349, a plaintiff must

allege that the defendant's conduct was: (1) consumer oriented; (2) deceptive or misleading in a

material way; and (3) that plaintiff suffered injury as a result. Mr. Morgan Martin personally received a

brochure from CPU teeming with false information, and as a result of this false information Mr. Martin

pursued education at CPU, leaving him in debt, with a diploma that is to quote the plaintiff Isnt worth

the paper its printed upon.

Your honor, this evening you have had a case played out in front of you from two stand points,

these individual standpoints are those of a Mr. Morgan Martin, and those of the Cattaraugus

Programming University; in this trial we have heard from six individuals, each of whom provided

essential information as to whether and injustice has occurred. You first heard from Morgan Martin, the

plaintiff who made clear the problems with CPU. You then heard from Mr. Jordan Phillips a former

employee of CPU, who was able to divulge pertinent information describing their horrendous business

practices. And finally from the plaintiff you heard from Dr. Chris Cringle, who informed us of CPUs false

accreditation and exposed their shocking business practices. From the defense we heard from Dana

Debtor who told us of the schools target group: people who are completely new to the college

experience, then a Dr. Shannon Charlton, who did by omitting certain pertinent information regarding

CPU, mislead Mr. Morgan Martin. Finally we heard from Casey Key, Mr. /Ms. Key whom offered a

biased speculation as to Mr. Martins Failure at CPU.

It is from these persons, we are able to understand all of the false practices and fallacious

statements CPU made. These deceptive acts carried out through a string of false advertising and

misdirection, under New York State General Business Law 349 are unlawful. The foremost example of

this false advertising started with a glossy brochure that made its way to Mr. Martins home, created by

7/28/2019 Summation Mock Trial 2013

2/2

Dr. Charlton and Mr. Phillips, this brochure made numerous false claims intended to mislead potential

students of the university, these are: that 95% of CPU graduates DID NOT receive computer-related

employment or proceeded to a four-year institution within one year after graduation, misleading in

that computer related employment merely means that employees use computers at their job, not

specifically programming; that CPUs career placement office DID NOT find unpaid internships for all of

its students - in fact, they were unable to give Mr. Martin an unpaid internship. Additionally, CPU

courses were not taught by accredited computer science professionals who possessed the highest

qualifications in their field, in fact many of the professors took ill-timed sabbaticals to get these

degrees that they supposedly already had making it near impossible for a student to graduate in the

expected two years; and finally, that CPUs tuition DID NOT offer an excellent value for a world-class

education in that it was more expensive than many higher credited universities. Moreover CPUs target

students as so aptly put by Mr. Jordan Phillips are those who arent the brightest bulbs on the porch,

those an easy group to lie to, and according to Ms/Mr. Dana Dettor, Our students are generally the first

in the family to go to college and every step forward is a new experience and getting the sons and

daughters of former assembly-line workers into our technical programs. Finally while touring the

campus Mr. Morgans questions where not only deferred but also never answered directly ((((not to

mention the pot hole the bus to the university drove over on the campus leaving him with neck

injuries)))), misleading him into believing that CPU was indeed an esteemed university (and judging from

what we heard today we can safely assume the opposite).

It is because of these deceptive business practices that we the plaintiff respectfully request a

judgment against the Defendant of an amount in excess of $80,000, and a permanent injunction

enjoining and restraining Cattaraugus Programming University from engaging in such false and

deceptive business practices, in the advertising and marketing of its associates degree program; and for

such other and further relief you and this court deem just and proper. Thank you your honor.