Julian J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak
| Decision Date | 22 February 1977 |
| Parties | , 362 N.E.2d 611 JULIAN J. STUDLEY, INC., et al., Respondents-Appellants, v. Samuel J. LEFRAK et al., Appellants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Alan E. Bandler and Edward Labaton, New York City, for respondents-appellants.
Guy C. Quinlan, William R. Glendon and James M. Asher, New York City, for appellants-respondents.
This controversy arose out of the breakdown of the relationship between the plaintiffs (Studley) and the defendants (Lefrak) in connection with two real estate brokerage agreements. In March, 1968, Studley, duly licensed real estate brokers, entered into two written agreements with Lefrak under which they were to act as the exclusive renting agents for two commercial buildings about to be constructed by Lefrak. Pursuant to the terms of the two contracts, each agreement was to continue in effect until six months after the completion date of the individual building to which it applied. Each agreement also provided that Lefrak had the right to cancel the agreement at any time after one year from the commencement of construction of the building upon giving Studley 30 days written notice of their intention to do so.
The parties became embroiled in a dispute shortly after the execution of these agreements, culminating when Lefrak, through a series of letters in June, 1968, notified Studley that both agreements were being terminated. Lefrak's asserted basis for the termination was that Studley had become involved in a conflict of interest by reason of an employment relationship they had entered into with another party. Studley thereafter commenced an action against Lefrak for breach of the two brokerage agreements.
On February 10, 1969, Lefrak filed what the plaintiffs have styled 'a false and malicious affidavit' with the Department of State charging Studley with unethical conduct and a breach of fiduciary duty, and requested that the Department of State take whatever action it deemed appropriate. On February 19, 1969, the department commenced a license revocation proceeding against Studley (Real Property Law, § 441--c). 1 The filing of the Lefrak affidavit and an alleged subsequent offer by Lefrak to withdraw the affidavit and claim of impropriety in settlement of the outstanding contract action form the basis of the plaintiffs' fifth and sixth causes of action sounding in libel and abuse of process.
Noting the contract provisions allowing them to cancel the brokerage agreements one year after the commencement of construction, Lefrak moved for partial summary judgment or, in the alternative, to limit the issues for trial with respect to Studley's first and fourth causes of action, seeking to limit the relevant damage periods to be considered in the event Studley was able to make out a case for breach. Lefrak also moved for summary judgment in connection with the tort causes of action. Special Term denied the motions in all respects. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's determination in connection with the contract claims, but modified the lower court's order by granting summary judgment on the fifth and sixth causes of action. Having so held, that court granted Lefrak leave to appeal from its determination in connection with the contract claims 2 and certified the following question: 'Was the order of this court dated December 15, 1975, properly made?'
Turning first to the denial of partial summary judgment or the limitation of the issues to be tried, the order of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orellana v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc.
...Workers of Am. Local 1171, No. 504CV00875NPM, 2005 WL 1331122, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. May 31, 2005)); accord Julian J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 41 N.Y.2d 881, 884, 362 N.E.2d 611 (1977). In other words, process entails that which is capable of "compelling the performance or forbearance of some pre......
-
Stega v. N.Y. Downtown Hosp.
...133 L.Ed.2d 207 [1995], quoting Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 50 A.D.2d 162, 165, 376 N.Y.S.2d 200 [1975], affd. 41 N.Y.2d 881, 393 N.Y.S.2d 980, 362 N.E.2d 611 [1977] ). "Accordingly, during the past several decades, the courts have extended the absolute privilege to a wide array of h......
-
Garson v. Hendlin
...v. Joyce, 113 A.D.2d 353, 356-357, 495 N.Y.S.2d 999; Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 50 A.D.2d 162, 165, 376 N.Y.S.2d 200 affd. 41 N.Y.2d 881, 393 N.Y.S.2d 980, 362 N.E.2d 611). The special policy concerns which underlie the judicial privilege are not furthered by extending the cloak of absolute i......
-
M.C. v. Cnty. of Westchester
...to whom it is directed . . . perform or refrain from the doing of some prescribed act.'" Julian J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 41 N.Y.2d 881, 884, 362 N.E.2d 611, 613, 393 N.Y.S.2d 980, 982 (1977) (quoting Williams v Williams, 23 NY2d 592, 596 (1969). Accordingly, WMC Defendants' motion for su......