Ulrich v. Hausfeld
| Decision Date | 22 February 2000 |
| Citation | 269 A.D.2d 526,704 N.Y.S.2d 495 |
| Parties | ROBERT W. ULRICH, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>MICHAEL D. HAUSFELD et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Santucci, J. P., Altman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's first and second causes of action alleging defamation, which stemmed from an accurate publication of statements made in the course of and pertinent to a judicial proceeding. The allegedly defamatory remarks were "absolutely privileged" (Martirano v Frost, 25 NY2d 505; Civil Rights Law § 74; see also, Park Knoll Assocs. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205; Romeo v Village of Fishkill, 248 AD2d 700). Moreover, the plaintiff has not demonstrated that the judicial proceeding was brought solely for the purpose of disseminating the alleged defamation (cf., Williams v Williams, 23 NY2d 592; Hughes Training v Pegasus Real-Time, 255 AD2d 729).
The Supreme Court also properly dismissed the cause of action predicated upon Judiciary Law § 487 since there is no evidence that the defendants engaged in a "`chronic extreme pattern of [legal] delinquency'" (Estate of Steinberg v Harmon, 259 AD2d 318; see, Mackley v Sullivan & Liapakis, 1999 WL 287362 [SD NY, May 7, 1999, Kram, J.]; see also, Beshara v Little, 215 AD2d 823).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. Silverman, 15 Civ. 8427 (PAC)(HBP)
...52 (1st Dep't 2007) ; Donaldson v. Bottar, 275 A.D.2d 897, 898, 715 N.Y.S.2d 168, 169 (4th Dep't 2000) ; Ulrich v. Hausfeld, 269 A.D.2d 526, 526, 704 N.Y.S.2d 495, 495 (2d Dep't 2000) ; Schindler v. Issler & Schrage, P.C., 262 A.D.2d 226, 227, 692 N.Y.S.2d 361, 362 (1st Dep't 1999) ; Gonzal......
-
Ray v. Watnick, 15 Civ. 10176
...51, 52 (1st Dep't 2007) ; Donaldson v. Bottar, 275 A.D.2d 897, 715 N.Y.S.2d 168, 169 (4th Dep't 2000) ; Ulrich v. Hausfeld, 269 A.D.2d 526, 704 N.Y.S.2d 495, 495 (2d Dep't 2000) ; Schindler v. Issler & Schrage, P.C., 262 A.D.2d 226, 692 N.Y.S.2d 361, 362 (1st Dep't 1999) ; Gonzalez v. Gordo......
-
Burton v. Krohn (In re Swift), Case No. 94-10285-CEC
...O'Callaghan v. Sifre, 537 F. Supp. 2d 594, 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Ulrich v. Hausfeld, 704 N.Y.S.2d 495 (2nd Dep't 2000). There is simply nothing like that present here. In addition, Burton was required to bring any claims based on alleged viola......
-
Carniol v. Carniol
...litigation and thus were absolutely privileged (see, Impallomeni v. Meiselman, Farber, Packman & Eberz, P.C., 272 A.D.2d 579; Ulrich v. Hausfeld, 269 A.D.2d 526; Goldfeder v. Weiss, 250 A.D.2d 731). As a matter of public policy, they may not serve as the basis for the imposition of liabilit......