Segall v. Sanders
| Citation | 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04836,129 A.D.3d 819,11 N.Y.S.3d 235 |
| Decision Date | 10 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2014-06759 |
| Parties | Sidney M. SEGALL, appellant, v. Peter S. SANDERS, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
129 A.D.3d 819
11 N.Y.S.3d 235
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 04836
Sidney M. SEGALL, appellant
v.
Peter S. SANDERS, respondent.
2014-06759
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
June 10, 2015.
Sidney M. Segall, Port Washington, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Sanders Litigation Associates, P.C., Port Washington, N.Y. (Peter S. Sanders pro se of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., PETER B. SKELOS, SHERI S. ROMAN, and HECTOR D. LaSALLE, JJ.
Opinion
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Woodard, J.), dated June 10, 2014, which granted the defendant's motion, which was converted, pursuant to CPLR 3211(c), from a motion to dismiss the complaint to a motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff and the defendant were adversaries and opposing counsel in a landlord/tenant litigation related to the exercise of a lease option by the defendant's law firm for additional space in a building owned by the plaintiff's company. The litigation was extremely acrimonious, resulting in confrontations and police involvement, and expanded to involve issues regarding the plaintiff's alleged repudiation of a settlement agreement and harassment of the defendant's employees. Ultimately, the defendant's law firm vacated the premises and
commenced an action to recover damages for actual and constructive partial eviction.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on certain communications the defendant sent to the Supreme Court and to a police detective during the course of the litigation. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, and the plaintiff thereafter served an amended complaint. In an order dated February 28, 2014, the Supreme Court notified the parties that it was converting the defendant's motion to a motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(c). In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted the defendant's converted motion. The plaintiff appeals.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's converted motion. Certain communications, although defamatory, cannot serve as the basis for liability in a defamation action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mahoney v. Mayowski
...v Frost, 25 N.Y.2d 505, 307 N.Y.S.2d 425 [1969]; Front, Inc. v Khalil, 24 NY3d 713, 718, 4 N.Y.S.3d 581 [2015]; Segall v Sanders, 129 A.D.3d 819, 820, 11 N.Y.S.3d 235 [2d Dept 2015]). The privilege applies to statements made in or out of court, on or off the record, and regardless of the mo......
-
Mahoney v. Mayowski
...... N.Y.2d 505, 307 N.Y.S.2d 425 [1969]; Front, Inc. v. Khalil, 24 NY3d 713, 718, 4 N.Y.S.3d 581 [2015];. Segall v Sanders, 129 A.D.3d 819, 820, 11 N.Y.S.3d. 235 [2d Dept 2015]). The privilege applies to statements made. in or out of court, on or ......
-
Hull v. Town of Prattsville
...in the subject of the investigation (see Toker v. Pollak, 44 N.Y.2d 211, 221, 405 N.Y.S.2d 1, 376 N.E.2d 163 [1978] ; Segall v. Sanders, 129 A.D.3d 819, 820–821, 11 N.Y.S.3d 235 [2015] ; Present v. Avon Prods., 253 A.D.2d 183, 188, 687 N.Y.S.2d 330 [1999], lv. dismissed 93 N.Y.2d 1032, 697 ......
-
Matchett v. Stark
...to a libel claim. See generally, Davis, 24 N.Y.3d at 269; see, e.g., Ram v. Moritt, 205 A.D.2d 516 (2d Dept 1994), Segall v. Sanders, 129 A.D.3d 819, 820 (2d Dept 2015); Penn Warranty Corp. v. Giovanni, 10 Misc. 3d 998, 1003 (NY Sup. Ct., Oct, 24, 2005); Roth, 5 Misc. 3d at 897. While a pur......