Fink v. Horn Const. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1977 |
| Citation | 58 A.D.2d 574,395 N.Y.S.2d 113 |
| Parties | David A. FINK et al., Appellants, v. HORN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Steven J. Romer, New York City (Samuel Rosenberg and Ronald A. Hollander, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
F. V. Mina, New York City (Vincent Tese, New York City, of counsel), for respondent Horn Const. Co., Inc.
Montfort, Healy, McGuire & Salley, Mineola (E. Richard Rimmels, Jr., Mineola, of counsel), for respondent S. Lawrence Hornstein.
Goodman, Penn, Scheinfeld & Goodman, P. C., Carle Place (Fredric Scheinfeld and Robert E. Penn, Carle Place, of counsel), for respondent Designers Fore, Ltd.
Huber, Kirk & O'Connell, Brooklyn (A. Paul Goldblum, Jackson Heights, of counsel), for respondent Georgia Pac. Corp.
Before COHALAN, J. P., and DAMIANI, RABIN and TITONE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for defamation and for injunctive relief, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 25, 1976, as (1) granted the motion of defendant Horn Construction Co., Inc., and the cross motions of defendants Designers Fore, Ltd. and Georgia Pacific Corp., for summary judgment, (2) dismissed the complaint as against defendant Hornstein insofar as it sought punitive damages, and (3) denied their cross motion for leave to amend the complaint.
Order modified, on the law, by (1) deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words "denied in all its respects", and substituting therefor the following: "granted except as to (a) the first and second causes of action set forth in the proposed amended complaint insofar as they seek damages for libel from Baldwin Jewish Center, (b) the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, tenth and eleventh causes of action set forth in the proposed amended complaint and (c) the seventh cause of action set forth in the proposed amended complaint insofar as it seeks damages for breach of contract from Designers Fore, Ltd."; (2) deleting the third decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision that the motion of defendant Horn Construction Company is denied; (3) deleting from the fifth decretal paragraph thereof the words "Horn Construction Co. Inc."; (4) deleting the seventh and eighth decretal paragraphs thereof; and (5) deleting from the sixth decretal paragraph thereof the words "other than for punitive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aronson v. Wiersma
...v. Schwartz, 95 A.D.2d 852, 464 N.Y.S.2d 211; Shaw v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 74 A.D.2d 985, 426 N.Y.S.2d 182; Fink v. Horn Constr. Co., 58 A.D.2d 574, 395 N.Y.S.2d 113; Amelkin v. Commercial Trading Co., 23 A.D.2d 830, 259 N.Y.S.2d 396, affd. 17 N.Y.2d 500, 267 N.Y.S.2d 218, 214 N.E.2d 37......
-
Teller v. Bill Hayes, Ltd.
...653, 541 N.Y.S.2d 526; Tenzer, Greenblatt, Fallon & Kaplan v. Capri Jewelry, 128 A.D.2d 467, 513 N.Y.S.2d 157; Fink v. Horn Const. Co., 58 A.D.2d 574, 395 N.Y.S.2d 113). Once again, reaching the merits of an issue not reached by the Supreme Court, we find that the defendants have demonstrat......
-
Noble v. Creative Technical Services, Inc.
...is not libelous per se (see, Aronson v. Wiersma, supra; Tufano v. Schwartz, 95 A.D.2d 852, 464 N.Y.S.2d 211; Fink v. Horn Construction Co., 58 A.D.2d 574, 395 N.Y.S.2d 113). Since the plaintiff has not alleged special damages (see, Matherson v. Marchello, 100 A.D.2d 233, 473 N.Y.S.2d 998), ......
-
Del Castillo v. Bayley Seton Hosp.
...v. Perone, 130 A.D.2d 472, 473, 515 N.Y.S.2d 55; Scott v. Transkrit Corp., 91 A.D.2d 682, 683, 457 N.Y.S.2d 134; Fink v. Horn Constr. Co., 58 A.D.2d 574, 575, 395 N.Y.S.2d 113). The law of the case doctrine is inapplicable in such a situation because a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7......