Entertainment Partners Group, Inc. v. Davis

• Decision Date: 09 November 1993
• Citation: 603 N.Y.S.2d 439,198 A.D.2d 63
• Parties: ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS GROUP, INC., etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gail DAVIS, et al., Defendants-Respondents, and Jeanette Paleg, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 439

603 N.Y.S.2d 439

198 A.D.2d 63

ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS GROUP, INC., etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gail DAVIS, et al., Defendants-Respondents and Jeanette Paleg, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division First Department.

Nov. 9, 1993.

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and ELLERIN, ROSS and NARDELLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered October 23, 1991, which, inter alia, granted the motion by defendants Gail Davis, Lawrence D. Bernfeld and Ed Green ("defendants") to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, as against them, and order of the same court and justice, entered on or about October 8, 1992, which awarded the defendants attorneys' fees and other costs in the sum of $10,000 each pursuant to CPLR § 8303-a, unanimously affirmed, with costs, 155 Misc.2d 894, 590 N.Y.S.2d 979.

The IAS court properly rejected plaintiff's attempt to bring a defamation action against the defendants, community opponents of plaintiff's requested zoning permit for operation of a restaurant and nightclub on the upper west side of Manhattan, in the guise of an economic tort, as well as the plaintiff's attempt to cast its defamation claim as tortious interference with business relations or prima facie tort since it is well settled that a plaintiff may not circumvent the one-year statute of limitations applicable to defamation actions (CPLR § 215[3] by denominating the action as one for intentional interference with economic relations, prima facie tort, or injurious falsehood if, in fact, the claim seeks redress for injury to reputation (Ramsay v. Bassett Hospital, 113 A.D.2d 149, 151-152, 495 N.Y.S.2d 282, app. dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 608, 502 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 494 N.E.2d 113). Additionally, a cause of action for prima facie tort or intentional interference with prospective economic advantage does not lie absent an allegation that the action complained of was motivated solely by malice or to inflict injury by unlawful means rather than by self-interest or other economic considerations (Mandelblatt v. Devon Stores, 132 A.D.2d 162, 168, 521 N.Y.S.2d 672).

We note also that New York State public policy strongly disfavors SLAPP suits designed to chill the exercise of a citizen's right to petition the government or appropriate administrative agency for redress of a perceived wrong (Sutton Area Community Inc. v. City of New York, NYLJ, Nov. 9, 1988, at 21, col. 4 [Nardelli, J.]; N.Y.C.R.L. § 70-a (L.1992, ch. 767 [eff....