Handlin v. Burkhart
| Decision Date | 21 May 1984 |
| Citation | 476 N.Y.S.2d 164,101 A.D.2d 850 |
| Parties | Walter HANDLIN, et al., Respondents, v. Renato BURKHART, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Pollner, Mezan & Stolzberg, P.C., New York City (William M. Pinzler, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
John Jaye Markos, Rockville Centre, for respondents.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and THOMPSON, RUBIN and LAWRENCE, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a libel action, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 3, 1983, which denied their motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing the complaint.
Order modified, on the law, by deleting the provision which denied defendants' motion dismissing the complaint with respect to Peter Mataxes, and substituting therefor a provision granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint with respect to Peter Mataxes. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Defendant Lido Shores Corporation is a company which, pursuant to contract, provided catering and other services to the United Nations. Plaintiffs Walter Handlin and Peter Mataxes were employed at the United Nations by Lido Shores, the former as a bar manager and the latter as a bartender. Defendant V. Renato Burkhart was appointed by Lido Shores in August, 1980 to the position of general manager of catering services at the United Nations. After his appointment Burkhart reviewed the departments and personnel under his supervision. He allegedly met with Handlin in or about September, 1980 to discuss certain problems Burkhart observed in the North Lounge, where Handlin was bar manager. The subject matter of their discussion included the presence of water in alcoholic spirits, missing items, and the appearance of the bar. Handlin allegedly replied that the problems which were discussed would be rectified. Burkhart subsequently decided that in addition to the regular monthly audits conducted prior to the opening of the bars, a second audit would be performed at the North Lounge on the same date as the regular audit, but at the close of business. Two such special audits were conducted, one on October 1, 1980 and one on November 3, 1980. The audits revealed a considerable discrepancy between potential sales and actual sales of liquor. Burkhart also discovered by visual and taste tests that certain bottles of superior brand liquor did not contain their original product, but rather contained an inferior brand of liquor, and that water had been added to certain liquor.
On the basis of these findings, Burkhart met with Handlin and Mataxes on January 18, 1981 and requested their resignations. Burkhart explained that the reason their resignations were being requested was because of the discovery of certain improprieties in the North Lounge. Handlin and Mataxes refused to resign.
On January 20, 1981 a second meeting was held. Burkhart, Handlin, Mataxes and two representatives from the employees' union were present. Burkhart detailed the reasons for the requested resignations. When Handlin and Mataxes again refused to resign, their services were terminated.
Thereafter, Burkhart delivered to the union representatives a report specifying various acts of wrongdoing on the part of the discharged employees. It is this report which allegedly was libelous, and upon which the instant action is based. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the statements made were qualifiedly privileged. Special Term denied summary judgment, concluding that issues of fact existed as to whether Burkhart was motivated by actual malice and whether a careful and fair investigation of the facts which ultimately led to the termination of Handlin and Mataxes had been conducted.
We conclude that Special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackburn v. Johnson Chemical Co., Inc.
...be used to defeat this motion to dismiss. Moxon v. Barbour, 106 A.D.2d 558, 483 N.Y.S.2d 73 (2d Dept.1984); Handlin v. Burkhart, 101 A.D.2d 850, 476 N.Y.S.2d 164 (2d Dept.1984).In light of the determination herein, although the Court is inclined to answer in the negative, the Court need not......
-
Kirkland v. City of Peekskill
...privilege exists (Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 7 N.Y.2d 56, 194 N.Y.S.2d 509, 163 N.E.2d 333; Handlin v. Burkhart, 101 A.D.2d 850, 476 N.Y.S.2d 164).... To overcome a qualified privilege, it is the plaintiff's burden to show active malice, ill will, personal spite, or culpab......
-
Missick v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc.
...of any malice on the part of defendants (Trails West v. Wolff, 32 N.Y.2d 207, 221, 344 N.Y.S.2d 863, 298 N.E.2d 52; Handlin v. Burkhart, 101 A.D.2d 850, 851, 476 N.Y.S.2d 164, lv. dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 882, 487 N.Y.S.2d 559, 476 N.E.2d 1004; Rezey v. Golub Corp., 73 A.D.2d 772, 774, 423 N.Y.S......
-
Conciatori v. Longworth
...in that regard is the plaintiff's own conclusory allegations based on suspicion, conjecture, and surmise (see, Handlin v. Burkhart, 101 A.D.2d 850, 851, 476 N.Y.S.2d 164, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 678, 496 N.Y.S.2d 422, 487 N.E.2d 279). Therefore, the motion of Bogner and Cigna for summary judgment w......