Hamlet Development Co. v. Venitt
| Decision Date | 13 June 1983 |
| Parties | The HAMLET DEVELOPMENT CO., et al., Respondents, v. Arthur VENITT, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, New York City (George Berger and William A. Tanenbaum, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Wofsey, Certilman, Haft, Lebow & Balin, Valley Stream (David I. Rosenberg, Valley Stream, of counsel), for respondents.
Before DAMIANI, J.P., and MANGANO, GIBBONS and GULOTTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a libel action, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 30, 1982, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
Order reversed, on the law, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed.
On January 27, 1981, defendant purchased a condominium from the plaintiff, The Hamlet Development Co. (hereinafter Hamlet Company) for approximately $160,000. The Hamlet Company is a joint venture consisting of the Hamlet Development Corp. (hereinafter Hamlet Corporation) and Old Northern Co. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of the defendant's mortgagee, Roslyn Savings Bank. Plaintiff Gerald Monter is one of the principal officers of the Hamlet Corporation, and was primarily responsible for the design and construction of defendant's condominium unit.
This action arises out of a letter written on September 8, 1981, by defendant to the Roslyn Savings Bank. In the letter defendant indicated that he was dissatisfied with the delay in completing the unit, and in the quality of workmanship that went into its production. Thereafter, plaintiffs commenced this action, alleging that the letter was defamatory.
Preliminarily, we note that the legal sufficiency of a complaint for libel of a joint venture is to be determined by the same standard that is applied when a corporation is libeled (see Carpet Center at Korvette-Westbury v. New York Post Corp., 13 A.D.2d 532, 213 N.Y.S.2d 166).
Special Term erred in failing to dismiss the causes of action insofar as asserted by the Hamlet Company and the Hamlet Corporation.
The Court of Appeals recently addressed the issue of commercial defamation in Ruder & Finn v. Seaboard Sur. Co., 52 N.Y.2d 663, 670-671, 439 N.Y.S.2d 858, 422 N.E.2d 518, where it stated in pertinent part:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Worldcare Int'l Inc. v. Kay
...support an action for disparagement, but will do so only if malice and special damages are proven. Hamlet Development Co. et al., v. Venitt, 95 A.D.2d 798, 463 N.Y.S.2d 514 (1st Dept 1983). Here, the statements to which Plaintiffs object relate solely to the quality of goods and services re......
-
De Marco-Stone Funeral Home Inc. v. WRGB Broadcasting Inc.
...96; Christopher Lisa Matthew Policano Inc. v. North Am. Precis Syndicate, 129 A.D.2d 488, 490, 514 N.Y.S.2d 239; Hamlet Dev. Co. v. Venitt, 95 A.D.2d 798, 463 N.Y.S.2d 514, aff'd 60 N.Y.2d 677, 468 N.Y.S.2d 105, 455 N.E.2d 664). The record here does not present a triable issue of fact as to......
-
Olive Branch Funding LLC v. Wentworth
...could support an action for defamation, but will do so only if malice, special damages, and falsity are proven. See Hamlet Dev. Co. v. Venitt. 95 A.D.2d 798 (2nd Dept. 1983); Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Publishing Co.. 7 N.Y.2d 435, 440 (1960). The statements made by JGW's employee referr......
-
Cambridge Associates v. Inland Vale Farm Co.
...518, 422 N.E.2d 518; Drug Research Corp. v. Curtis Pub. Co., 7 N.Y.2d 435, 199 N.Y.S.2d 33, 166 N.E.2d 319; Hamlet Dev. Co. v. Venitt, 95 A.D.2d 798, 463 N.Y.S.2d 514, affd. 60 N.Y.2d 677, 468 N.Y.S.2d 105, 455 N.E.2d 664). Since the reported remarks were directed at plaintiffs' product, th......
-
Commercial Disparagement and Defamation
...546, 549-54 (E.D. Va. 1981); Crinkley v. Dow Jones & Co., 385 N.E.2d 714, 719 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978); see also Hamlet Dev. Co. v. Venitt, 463 N.Y.S.2d 514, 515 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983) (“Although defamation and disparagement in the commercial context are allied in that the gravamen of both are f......
-
Commercial Disparagement and Defamation
...549-54 (E.D. Va. 1981); Crinkley v. Dow Jones & Co . , 385 N.E.2d 714, 719 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978); s ee also Hamlet Dev. Co. v. Venitt, 463 N.Y.S.2d 514, 515 (App. Div. 1983) (“although defamation and disparagement in the commercial context are allied in that the gravamen of both are falsehoo......