Caffee v. Arnold
| Decision Date | 06 August 1984 |
| Citation | 478 N.Y.S.2d 683,104 A.D.2d 352 |
| Parties | William P. CAFFEE, Appellant, v. George ARNOLD, Jr., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert W. Farrell, Mineola, for appellant.
Gladstein, Reif & Meginnis, Brooklyn (James Reif, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondents Local 252 of the Transport Workers Union of America and George Arnold, Jr., as president thereof, and George Arnold, Jr. respondent pro se (one brief filed).
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and WEINSTEIN, BROWN and NIEHOFF, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for slander, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated April 4, 1983, which denied his motion for leave to renew and reargue a motion by defendant for summary judgment dismissing the complaint which had previously been granted by order of the same court.
Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
A motion to renew may be based upon material facts which existed at the time of the making of the original application but which, for some reason, were not known to the party seeking renewal and were therefore not made known to the court. Leave to renew should be denied unless the moving party offers a reasonable excuse as to why the additional facts were not submitted on the original application (Dominski v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 92 A.D.2d 704, 460 N.Y.S.2d 392; Spiro v. Spiro, 91 A.D.2d 1103, 458 N.Y.S.2d 354; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588). In this case, plaintiff was indisputably aware at the time of the original motion of the factual allegations regarding the context in which the allegedly defamatory remarks arose, which allegations he sought to offer as additional facts in support of his motion to renew. Indeed, his counsel alluded to those allegations in a memorandum of law at the time of the original motion, but they were never presented in evidentiary form. Counsel's explanation for failing to do so is that he believed that there was no necessity to assert said facts since they were only a denial of improperly asserted conclusory allegations by defendants. We do not consider such explanation to be satisfactory. Plaintiff should have laid bare all of his evidence on the original motion.
Moreover, even if we were to conclude that renewal should have been granted and were to review the merits, we would nevertheless hold that summary judgment was properly granted. The basis of plaintiff's slander action is his claim that defendant Arnold allegedly stated at a union meeting that plaintiff together with another union member, "got $2,500.00 from TWU International" (hereinafter the International). Plaintiff admits having received $678.83 from the International as reimbursement for expenses incurred in activities related to the union. Defendant Arnold asserts and is uncontradicted in this respect, that an officer of the International had told him that the plaintiff, together with another individual, had received at least $2,500 from the International.
Not having pleaded special damages, the plaintiff may not recover for slander unless the defamatory words are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jewell v. Nyp Holdings, Inc.
...with a specific indictable offense." NYP Mem. at 18 (citing Privitera, 79 A.D.2d. at 3, 435 N.Y.S.2d at 404; Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352, 478 N.Y.S.2d 683 (2d Dep't 1984)). There are two problems with this First, the NYP confuses libel per se and slander per se. As set forth above, whe......
-
People v. Llewelyn
...existed at the time the original application was filed but which, for some reason, was unknown to the moving party (Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352, 478 N.Y.S.2d 683; cf. Patterson v. Town of Hempstead, 104 A.D.2d 975, 480 N.Y.S.2d who issued the order unless he or she is unable to hear it......
-
Kasavana v. Vela
...336, 344–345, 912 N.Y.S.2d 484, 938 N.E.2d 917 ; cf. Zetes v. Stephens, 108 A.D.3d 1014, 1019, 969 N.Y.S.2d 298 ; Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352, 353, 478 N.Y.S.2d 683 ). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have grante......
-
Kennaugh v. Miller
...(2d Dep't 1998); Misek-Falkoff v. Village of Pleasantville, 207 A.D.2d 332, 615 N.Y.S.2d 422 (2d Dep't 1994); Caffee v. Arnold, 104 A.D.2d 352, 478 N.Y.S.2d 683 (2d Dep't 1984). All three of these cases cite to Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588 (1st Dep't 1979), in which the A......