Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered April 17, 2003 and on or about February 24, 2004, which, in a putative class action arising out of defendant Internet domain name registrar’s automatic renewal of plaintiffs domain names registrations, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7) dismissing plaintiffs causes of action for a declaration that such renewals violated General Obligations Law § 5-903, damages and injunctive relief under General Business Law § 349, and damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and conversion, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We are in accord with authorities holding that a domain name
Nor does plaintiff state a cause of action for deceptive trade practices. Based on the complaint, documentary evidence and plaintiff’s concessions in opposing defendant’s motion to dismiss, it appears that the parties entered into an agreement for the registration of domain names submitted by plaintiff to defendant; that the agreement could be unilaterally modified by defendant and unilaterally canceled by plaintiff once notified of any such modification; that all notices required by the agreement could be given by e-mail; and that plaintiff was required to keep his e-mail address with defendant up to date, but failed to do so. It further appears that defendant modified the agreement so as to provide for automatic renewal of domain name registrations for a one-year period; notified plaintiff by e-mail of each expiring registration and of his right to cancel the agreement; and also notified plaintiff by e-mail of each completed renewal and of his right to revoke it by contacting defendant via its toll-free telephone number or by a hyperlink that would automatically credit the charge to plaintiff’s credit card. Plaintiff asserts that he never received these e-mails, but, so far as appears, that was only because he failed to update his e-mail address with defendant, as required by the agreement. We perceive nothing deceptive in defendant’s use of e-mail to give notice of modification of an agreement that expressly permitted notice by e-mail.
The conversion cause of action was properly dismissed on the ground that the $34.99 per renewal charged to plaintiffs credit card is not specifically identifiable (cf. Republic of Haiti v Duvalier,
