Sullivan v. Crisona

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New York)
Writing for the CourtIRVING H. SAYPOL
PartiesEdward R. SULLIVAN, Plaintiff, v. Claire P. CRISONA, Defendant.
Decision Date31 July 1967

Page 62

283 N.Y.S.2d 62
54 Misc.2d 478
Edward R. SULLIVAN, Plaintiff,
v.
Claire P. CRISONA, Defendant.
Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part I.
July 31, 1967.

Page 63

[54 Misc.2d 479] Arthur B. Spielberg, New York City, for plaintiff.

Brown, Cross & Hamilton, New York City, E. Douglas Hamilton, Donald G. McCabe, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

IRVING H. SAYPOL, Justice.

The cross-motion by the defendant for an order dismissing the complaint is granted.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff is an attorney who was admitted in 1951 and maintains an office at 19 W. 44 St. The defendant here sued Eastern Properties Improvement Corp. (EPIC) in September 1965 on a promissory note; Sullivan was EPIC's lawyer; in October and December 1965, the defendant entered into a scheme to falsely and maliciously injure the plaintiff; that the defendant published a complaint regarding his conduct to the Bar Association of the City of New York (The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, hereafter the Uptown Association) and to the Brooklyn Bar Association (hereafter the Brooklyn Association); that the complaint to the Uptown Association was filed in October 1965 and that the plaintiff personally appeared there on October 25, 1965; that early in November 1965, the plaintiff was advised that the complaint against him was being dismissed; that on December 2, 1965 the defendant filed a new complaint with The Brooklyn Association, of which a copy is attached to the instant complaint as an exhibit; that this was done after the defendant had been advised that the Uptown Association intended to take no action on her complaint.

The plaintiff then sets forth seven portions of the complaint to the Brooklyn Association allegedly libelous, with malice, with knowledge of falsity and demanding $500,000 as damage.

These allegations are repeated in a second cause of action for malicious prosecution, malice is alleged, as is lack of jurisdiction in the Brooklyn Association and damage of $500,000 is claimed.

The allegations are repeated in a third cause of action for abuse of process.

The answer to the complaint was served on January 3, 1967. In addition to denials, the defendant alleges that her representative appeared before the Uptown Grievance Committee on October 6, 1965, relative to the

Page 64

professional conduct of the plaintiff and one John E. Porte, who had been admitted in the Second Department; that on November 5, 1965, the Uptown Committee referred the matter to the Brooklyn Association's Grievance Committee; that the latter asked her to put her grievances in writing and that she complied and mailed the document supplied by the Brooklyn Committee to the latter on November 30, 1965.

[54 Misc.2d 480] Four affirmative defenses are interposed in the answer:

1. That none of the alleged causes of action are sufficient in law.

2. That the Statute of Limitations is a bar.

3. Absolute privilege is a complete defense.

4. Qualified privilege is also a complete defense.

This lawsuit is the sequel to the present defendant's action against EPIC. She prevailed on her motion for summary judgment and the order was affirmed (Crisona v. Eastern Props Improvement Corp., 24 A.D.2d 704, 261 N.Y.S.2d 602). Throughout that litigation this plaintiff made the representation as a matter of defense on behalf of EPIC and most graphically portrayed in his affirmation of January 15, 1965, on knowledge, to the Appellate Division, First Department, on an application for a stay pending appeal from the order granting summary judgment:

'19. The defendant corporation has no record of the so-called June 27, 1961 note and became aware of such note only upon receipt of the September 4th letter and it is during the month of September specifically the 29th of September, 1964, when this lawsuit was brought.'

It is clearly and irrefutably shown here by reference to documentary evidence such as the annual...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...Rules of Law: Prof. Resp., Rule 21 (1977); Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 73-3-345 (1992); N.J.S.Ct.Rule 1:20- 11(b)(1984); Sullivan v. Crisona, 283 N.Y.S.2d 62 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (interpreting N.Y. Judiciary Law Sec. 90); N.D. Cent. Code Sec. 27- 14-03 (1974); Okla. Ct. Rules Governing Disciplinary Pro......
  • Practice and procedure: Patent and trademark cases rules of practice; representation of others before Patent and Trademark Office,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 12, 2003
    • December 12, 2003
    ...Rules of Law: Prof. Resp., Rule 21 (1977); Miss. Code Ann. Sec. 73-3-345 (1992); N.J.S.Ct.Rule 1:20- 11(b)(1984); Sullivan v. Crisona, 283 N.Y.S.2d 62 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (interpreting N.Y. Judiciary Law Sec. 90); N.D. Cent. Code Sec. 27- 14-03 (1974); Okla. Ct. Rules Governing Disciplinary Pro......
  • Friedland v. Podhoretz
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • April 23, 1980
    ...similarly underwhelming. Page 82 In 25 years only two courts, a New York and a Florida court, have followed Toft : Sullivan v. Cresonia, 54 Misc.2d 478, 283 N.Y.S.2d 62 (Sup.Ct.1967), and Stone v. Rosen, 348 So.2d 387 (Fla.Ct.App.1977). Moreover, Illinois recently declined to rule on the ad......
  • Hearing on Immunity for Ethics Complainants, Matter of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 3, 1984
    ...Art. 15 § 13 (West Supp.1983); Minn.Rules on Law: Prof.Resp., Rule 21 (1977); Miss.Code Ann. § 73-3-345 (1982); Sullivan v. Crisona, 54 Misc.2d 478, 283 N.Y.S.2d 62 (Sup.Ct.1967) (interpreting N.Y.Judiciary Law § 90); N.D.Cent.Code § 27-14-03 (1974); Okla.Ct.Rules Governing Disciplinary Pro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Friedland v. Podhoretz
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • April 23, 1980
    ...similarly underwhelming. Page 82 In 25 years only two courts, a New York and a Florida court, have followed Toft : Sullivan v. Cresonia, 54 Misc.2d 478, 283 N.Y.S.2d 62 (Sup.Ct.1967), and Stone v. Rosen, 348 So.2d 387 (Fla.Ct.App.1977). Moreover, Illinois recently declined to rule on the ad......
  • Hearing on Immunity for Ethics Complainants, Matter of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • July 3, 1984
    ...Art. 15 § 13 (West Supp.1983); Minn.Rules on Law: Prof.Resp., Rule 21 (1977); Miss.Code Ann. § 73-3-345 (1982); Sullivan v. Crisona, 54 Misc.2d 478, 283 N.Y.S.2d 62 (Sup.Ct.1967) (interpreting N.Y.Judiciary Law § 90); N.D.Cent.Code § 27-14-03 (1974); Okla.Ct.Rules Governing Disciplinary Pro......
  • Strick v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 1983
    ...looked to the mailing date to subscribers on the theory that the publisher is thereby divested of control (Sullivan v. Crisona (1967) 54 Misc.2d 478, 283 N.Y.S.2d 62, 65; see also Winrod v. McFadden Publications (N.D.Ill.1945) 62 F.Supp. 249, 250), as well as the placement of a substantial ......
  • Palestri v. Monogram Models, Inc., No. 88-5542
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 9, 1988
    ...323 F.2d 420 (8th Cir.1963) (publication of a libel occurs no earlier than date of receipt). Defendants rely on Sullivan v. Crisona, 54 Misc.2d 478, 283 N.Y.S.2d 62, 65 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1967), where the court held that because the critical date was November 30, 1965 when the mailing was made, a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT