Sirianni v. Rafaloff
| Decision Date | 18 June 2001 |
| Parties | PAUL SIRIANNI et al., Appellants,<BR>v.<BR>AL RAFALOFF et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Krausman, J. P., Florio, Feuerstein and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiffs operated a business out of their cooperative apartment in Forest Hills since 1980. After receiving complaints from other cooperative shareholders in April and May 1997 that the plaintiffs were operating a business out of their apartment in violation of the proprietary lease, members of the cooperative board and the board's counsel inspected the plaintiffs' apartment in September 1997, and confirmed that the apartment was being used for a business purpose. The cooperative board, through its counsel, issued a notice of termination, dated November 25, 1997, to the plaintiffs advising them that their tenancy would be terminated if they failed to cure their violation of the proprietary lease. The cooperative board then commenced a holdover proceeding in January 1998, which was dismissed that month due to an error in the notice of termination.
The cooperative board served a notice to cure, dated February 11, 1998, indicating that a notice of termination would be served if the plaintiffs failed to cure the violation by March 16, 1998. The cooperative board served a second notice to cure dated May 5, 1998, advising that a notice of termination would be served if the plaintiffs did not cure the violation by June 5, 1998. A notice of termination dated June 15, 1998, was served. The plaintiffs then commenced this action against the cooperative corporation and its board of directors, a tenant, and the spouse of a board member, alleging, inter alia, that the termination of their lease was motivated by racial animus.
After the defendant Annette Rafaloff, who is the spouse of a board member, and the defendant Daniel Moore, a cooperative tenant, made out a prima facie case of their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiffs failed to present any triable issue of fact that these individuals participated in the acts complained of. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the causes of action alleging racial discrimination insofar as asserted against the remaining defendants since the basis for termination of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raymond v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2010 NY Slip Op 30272(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2/3/2010)
... ... See Lesesne v. Lesesne, 292 A.D.2d 507, 509 (2d Dept. 2002), citing Sirianni v. Rafaloff, 284 A.D.2d 447 (2d Dept. 2001). Moreover, the "common interest" present here affords the bank a qualified privilege, Liberman v ... ...
- Liotti v. Peace
-
Arvanitakis v. Lester
...defamation causes of action as were predicated upon alleged statements made during such general time periods (see Sirianni v. Rafaloff, 284 A.D.2d 447, 448, 727 N.Y.S.2d 452 ; Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d at 40, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1 ). The court correctly granted dismissal of so much of......
-
Lesesne v. Lesesne
... ... , as the complaint failed to allege the time, place, and manner of the allegedly false statements and to whom such statements were made (see, Sirianni v Rafaloff, 284 A.D.2d 447; Grynberg v Alexander's, Inc., 133 A.D.2d 667). The Supreme Court also properly dismissed the cause of action alleging ... ...