Lukashok v. Concerned Residents of North Salem
| Decision Date | 02 April 1990 |
| Citation | 160 A.D.2d 685,554 N.Y.S.2d 39 |
| Parties | Alvin LUKASHOK, Appellant, v. CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF NORTH SALEM, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Scheffler, King & Casper, Mount Kisco (Allan J. Scheffler and Gary Lee Bel, of counsel), for appellant.
Dornbush Mensch Mandelstam & Silverman, New York City (Martin J. Auerbach, of counsel), for respondents.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BROWN, RUBIN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for libel, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered July 12, 1988, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff Alvin Lukashok is a real estate developer who sought to construct a hotel on a parcel of land located in the Town of North Salem in Westchester. The defendant Concerned Residents of North Salem (hereinafter CRNS) is a nonprofit corporation which published a newsletter concerning environmental issues. The other defendants are individuals who are officers and directors of the corporation.
In 1984, at the time the plaintiff began to seek approval for his project, the applicable zoning ordinance permitted a hotel to be built on his property. From 1984 to 1987, more than 30 meetings were held and over 20 articles were written on the subject. The applicable zoning law was ultimately changed so as to effectively bar hotel construction on the plaintiff's property. Thereafter, the plaintiff commenced an action against the Town of North Salem, the Town Board and the Planning Board, as well as all of the board members individually. Subsequently, the defendants published a newsletter which is the subject of the instant libel suit. The newsletter stated, in pertinent part:
The statements complained of constituted nonactionable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Park v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc.
...79 N.Y.2d 753, 581 N.Y.S.2d 281, 589 N.E.2d 1263 [developers called "profit hungry land abusers"]; Lukashok v. Concerned Residents of N. Salem, 160 A.D.2d 685, 686, 554 N.Y.S.2d 39 [developer accused of "terrorism", "malicious" use of legal system]; Schwartz v. Nordstrom, Inc., 160 A.D.2d 2......
-
Gisel v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc.
...were based on undisclosed facts ( see Gross, 82 N.Y.2d at 153–154, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813, 623 N.E.2d 1163; Lukashok v. Concerned Residents of N. Salem, 160 A.D.2d 685, 686, 554 N.Y.S.2d 39). Moreover, none of the statements were “capable of being objectively characterized as true or false” ( Ste......
-
Bakal v. Weare
...6 (1970) ("blackmail"); McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F.2d 839, 842-43 (1st Cir.1987) ("scam"); Lukashok v. Concerned Residents of North Salem, 160 A.D.2d 685, 554 N.Y.S.2d 39, 40 (2 Dept.1990) The current dispute is merely the latest round in the running controversies between these parties. It i......
-
Crane-Hogan Structural Sys., Inc. v. Belding
...quoting Greenbelt Coop. Publ. Assn., Inc. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 14, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 ; see Lukashok v. Concerned Residents of N. Salem, 160 A.D.2d 685, 686, 554 N.Y.S.2d 39 ). We otherwise affirm the order for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.It is hereby ORDERED......