Abello v. NYP Holdings, Inc.

2026 NY Slip Op 31021(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: Index No. 100320/2024
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Phaedra F. Perry-Bond

Opinion

Abello v NYP Holdings, Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 31021(U) March 17, 2026 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 100320/2024 Judge: Phaedra F. Perry-Bond Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.

file:///LRB-ALB-FS1/Vol1/ecourts/Process/covers/NYSUP.1003202024.NEW_YORK.001.LBLX038_TO.html[03/25/2026 3:45:46 PM] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 100320/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND PART 35 Justice -------------------.X INDEX NO. 100320/2024 TATIANA ABELLO, OLYMPIA OVIEDO-REYES, VICTORIA OVIEDO, 04/30/2025, 04/30/2025, Plaintiff, 04/30/2025, MOTION DATE 09/02/2025 -v- 003 004 005 NYP HOLDINGS, INC.,FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC,CBS MOTION SEQ. NO. 006 INTERACTIVE INC.,CBS NEWS INC.,INSIDE EDITION INC.,NEWS CORP., PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, FOX NEWS INC., DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. -------------------.X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,21,22,23,24, 52,54,57, 58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68, 93,94,95,96 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,31,32,33,34,35,36,50,53,55,69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79,80, 100,101 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,51,56,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88, 89,90,91,92, 97,98,99, 102 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,108,109,110, 111, 112,113,114,115,116,117 were read on this motion to/for AMEND CAPTION/PLEADINGS

Upon the foregoing documents, motion sequences 003 through 006 are consolidated for

disposition and decided as follows:

A. Defendant NYP Holdings, Inc.'s ("New York Post") motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'

Amended Complaint ("Mot. Seq. 003") is granted.

100320/2024 ABELLO, TATIANA vs. N.V. POST Page 1 ofB Motion No. 003 004 005 006

[* 1] 1 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 100320/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

B. Defendants CBS Interactive Inc. ("CBS") and Inside Edition Inc.' s ("Inside Edition")

motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint ("Mot. Seq. 004") is granted.

C. Defendant Fox News Network, LLC's ("Fox") motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended

Complaint ("Mot. Seq. 005") is granted.

D. Plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to correct fake citations they submitted in their legal

memorandum generated through artificial intelligence ("Mot. Seq. 006") is denied.

I. Background

Plaintiffs, who are self-represented, bring this case against Defendants based on news articles

related to prior Housing Court proceedings wherein Plaintiffs were respondents. Verra Katz, who

died at the age of 103, lived in a rent-stabilized apartment at 305 East 86th Street, New York, New

York (the "Apartment"). Ms. Katz has a daughter named Alayne Skylar ("Skylar") who did not

live with her. According to documents from Housing Court, Plaintiff Tatiana Abello ("Tatiana")

was hired to help care for Ms. Katz. Tatiana allegedly brought her sister, Plaintiff Victoria Abello

("Victoria") and mother, Olympia Oviedo-Reyes ("Olympia") to live in the Apartment and tried

to claim succession rights under the Rent Stabilization Law.

According to a lawsuit filed by Skylar in October of 2021, the Plaintiffs prevented her from

accessing the Apartment and installed a slider bolt lock. It was alleged during the Housing Court

proceedings that Plaintiffs refused to provide Skylar with her parents' ashes, which remained in

the Apartment and which Plaintiffs allegedly threatened to flush down the toilet. The Apartment's

landlord commenced a holdover proceeding against Victoria, Tatiana, Skylar, and "Doe"

defendants on September 29, 2022. In February of 2023, the New York Post learned about the

Housing Court proceedings and sought comment from Skylar and Plaintiffs. Skylar agreed to an

interview but Plaintiffs, who were at the time represented by a lawyer, declined to comment.

100320/2024 ABELLO, TATIANA vs. N.Y. POST Page 2 of8 Motion No. 003 004 005 006

[* 2] 2 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 100320/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

Relying on Court documents, Ms. Katz's will, deposition testimony, text messages between Skylar

and Plaintiffs, a police report, and a doorman, the New York Post published an article on March

18, 2023 (the "Post Article") which reported on the allegations giving rise to the Housing Court

proceedings. Inside Edition likewise covered the Housing Court proceedings and included in its

coverage Plaintiffs' position that they have succession rights to the Apartment. Fox published its

own article relying on the reporting from the New York Post.

The Plaintiffs subsequently brought this lawsuit, filing a 73-page Amended Complaint

claiming civil conspiracy, "aiding and abetting alleged torts", defamation, and intentional

infliction of emotional distress. The Defendants now move to dismiss asserting multiple grounds,

including New York Civil Rights Law § 74 and the anti-SLAPP law. The Plaintiffs opposed by

submitting a brief which they admit was generated using artificial intelligence and which contains

numerous fake or misleading citations. Plaintiffs filed a separate motion seeking leave to correct

their brief containing fake citations. For the reasons that follow, the motions to dismiss are granted

and the motion seeking leave to file a corrected brief is denied.

II. Discussion

A. Standard

When reviewing a pre-answer motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court must

give the Plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be drawn from the pleadings

(Sassi v Mobile Life Support Services, Inc., 37 NY3d 236, 239 [2021]). However, conclusory

allegations or bare legal conclusions with no factual specificity are insufficient (Godfrey v Spano,

13 NY3d 358, 373 [2009]). A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted if the

factual allegations do not allow for an enforceable right of recovery (Connaughton v Chipotle

Mexican Grill, Inc., 29 NY3d 137, 142 [2017]). A motion to dismiss based on documentary

100320/2024 ABELLO, TATIANA vs. N.Y. POST Page 3 ofB Motion No. 003 004 005 006

[* 3] 3 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 100320/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

evidence is appropriately granted when the documentary evidence utterly refutes the plaintiffs

factual allegations, conclusively establishing a defense as a matter of law (Goshen v Mutual Life

Ins. Co. o/New York, 98 NY2d 314 [2002]).

A motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(g) shall be granted when the movant shows the

action targets speech involving public petition and participation, as defined in Civil Rights Law

§ 76-a, unless the opposing party shows the action has a substantial basis (see Gillespie v Kling,

217 AD3d 566, 567 [1st Dept 2023]). An action involves public petition and participation if it is

"any communication in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of

public interest" or if it is "any other lawful conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the

constitutional right of free speech in connection with an issue of public interest" (see Civil Rights

Law§ 76-a[l][a]).

In opposing a CPLR 321 l(g) motion, a plaintiff must demonstrate that its claims have "a

substantial basis in law or is supported by a substantial argument for an extension, modification or

reversal of existing law" (see Reeves v Foundation for the Child Victims ofthe Family Courts, ---

N.Y.S.3d ----, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00861 at *1 [1st Dept 2026]). The "substantial basis" standard

is a "heightened burden" compared to the pleading standard under CPLR 321 l(a)(7) (S.N. v

Integral Yoga Institute, Inc. 245 AD3d 536 [1st Dept 2026]). "Substantial basis," for purposes of

a motion to dismiss, requires "such relevant proof as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to

support a conclusion or ultimate fact" (see Smartmatic USA Corp. v Fox Corp., 213 AD3d 512

[1st Dept 2023]).

B. Motions to Dismiss (Mot. Seqs. 003 through 005).

The motions to dismiss are granted. The anti-SLAPP law applies because the targeted

speech involves an issue of public interest (ongoing judicial proceedings) broadcast to a public

100320/2024 ABELLO, TATIANA vs. N.Y. POST Page4 of8 Motion No. 003 004 005 006

[* 4] 4 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 100320/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

forum (news articles published on the internet) (see Black v Ganieva, 236 AD3d 427, 427-428

[1st Dept 2025]; Sweetpea Ventures Inc. v Belmalmoun, 231 AD3d 460, 460-461 [1st Dept 2024]

[matters of public interest include judicial proceedings]). Therefore, the more rigorous CPLR

3211 (g) standard applies. Applying that standard, Plaintiffs have failed to show this lawsuit has a

substantial basis.

New York Civil Rights Law§ 74 bars this action. That statute, titled "Privileges in action

for libel" states "A civil action cannot be maintained against any person, firm or corporation, for

the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding, legislative proceeding or other

official proceeding, or for any heading of the report which is a fair and true headnote of the

statement published." So long as the gist of an article constitutes a "fair and true report" then "even

news articles containing false factual statements capable of defamatory interpretation will be

protected by the absolute privilege afforded by Civil Rights Law§ 74" (see Martin v Daily News

L.P., 121 AD3d 90, 100 [1st Dept 2014]). Comments that summarize or restate allegations filed in

an ongoing proceeding typically fall within§ 74's privilege (see Russian American Foundation,

Inc. v Daily News, L.P., 109 AD3d 410,413 [1st Dept 2013]).

The articles which are the subject of this action contain fair and true accounts of the

Housing Court proceedings brought against Plaintiffs (see, e.g. D'Arata v New York Post, 226

AD3d 560 [1st Dept 2024]; Golan v Daily News, L.P., 214 AD3d 558,559 [1st Dept 2023]). The

articles make clear that they were reporting on allegations, presented Plaintiffs defense - namely

that they were entitled to succession rights, and even reached out to Plaintiffs for comment prior

to publication. The articles simply report on what was alleged against Plaintiffs and contained

quotes from Skylar on issues related to the Housing Court proceedings. Plaintiffs' attempt to plead

10032012024 ABELLO, TATIANA vs. N.Y. POST Page 5 of 8 Motion No. 003 004 005 006

[* 5] 5 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 100320/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

actual malice is conclusory and insufficient. Simply put, there is no basis for this lawsuit, let alone

a substantial basis.

The intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, which are premised on the same

facts as the defamation claims, are dismissed as duplicative (see Matthaus v Hadjedj, 148 AD3d

425 [lstDept2017]; see also Bacon v Nygard, 140 AD3d 577,578 [1st Dept 2016] citing Fleischer

v NYP Holdings, Inc., 104 AD3d 536, 538-539 [1st Dept 2013], Iv. denied21 NY3d 858 [2013]).

To the extent Plaintiffs allege any other standalone torts, they are not sufficiently enumerated or

titled in the Amended Complaint in violation of CPLR 3014 (see also Scholastic Inc. v Pace

Plumbing Corp., 129 AD3d 75, 79 [1st Dept 2015] quoting Barsella v City ofNew York, 82 AD2d

747, 748 [1st Dept 1981] [neither parties nor the court ought to be "compelled to wade through a

mass of verbiage and superfluous matter" to divine what causes of action might apply to the case]).

To the extent there can be divined from the 73 page Amended Complaint that Plaintiffs seek

damages for "invasion of privacy" "reckless endangerment" or "obstruction of justice" - none of

those are private causes of action which may be brought in a civil lawsuit in New York.

Because there are no standalone causes of action, the civil conspiracy claim fails (Steier v

Schreiber, 25 AD3d 519, 522 [1st Dept 2006]). Likewise, there can be no aiding and abetting claim

when there is no underlying tort claim. To the extent Plaintiffs seek to hold Defendants liable for

comments made in response to the articles, Defendants cannot be held liable for the speech of

others over whom they have no control. Because Defendants succeeded on their CPLR 321l(g)

motions to dismiss, they are entitled to attorneys' fees under Civil Rights Law§ 70-a (see Gillespie

100320/2024 ABELLO, TATIANA vs. N.Y. POST Page 6 of 8 Motion No. 003 004 005 006

[* 6] 6 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 100320/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

v Kling, 217 AD3d 566, 567 [1st Dept 2023] citing Aristocrat Plastic Surgery, 206 AD3d 26, 32

[1st Dept 2022]). 1

C. Leave to File Corrected Memorandum of Law (Mot. Seq. 006)

Plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a corrected memorandum oflaw to replace the brief

they submitted containing fake citations is denied. The Court's resources are already stretched due

to the volume of meritorious litigation filed. Given the Court's limited time and resources, second

chances should rarely be given to any litigant, whether self-represented or not, who submits

frivolous, misleading, and outright fake legal arguments to the Court (see, e.g. Dow/ah v

Professional Sta.ff Congress, 227 AD3d 609, 610 [1st Dept 2024] ["prose status does not excuse

a litigant's failure to check the legal citations offered to the court]). Plaintiffs should consider

themselves lucky that further sanctions are not being issued on top of the attorneys' fees for which

they are now liable pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70-a. If Plaintiffs continue to engage in such

behavior, the Court may not be so lenient in the future. Therefore, Plaintiffs' motion seeking leave

to correct their fake citations is denied, and this case is dismissed. Defendants shall file motions

for attorneys' fees within thirty days. The Court has considered the Plaintiffs' remaining

contentions and finds them unavailing.

Accordingly, it is hereby,

ORDERED that Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in their entirety, and the

Amended Complaint is hereby dismissed, and within thirty days, Defendants shall submit fee

applications pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70-a; and it is further

1 While Plaintiffs are pro se, they are apparently adept at using artificial intelligence to conduct legal research and create legal papers. Plaintiffs therefore had the resources and the know-how to comprehend that if they lost this lawsuit, they would be subject to attorneys' fees under Civil Rights Law§ 70-a. 100320/2024 ABELLO, TATIANA vs. N.Y. POST Page 7 of8 Motion No. 003 004 005 006

[* 7] 7 of 8 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/17/2026 12:34 PM INDEX NO. 100320/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 123 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/17/2026

ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to correct the fake citations they

submitted in their memorandum of law is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Defendants shall serve a copy of this

Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties via NYSCEF.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the C o ~

3 /t1 /u DATE ~--___;;a_~_-A_L _____.,--- HON. PHAEDRA F. PERRY-BOND, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED ~ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED □ DENIED x GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE

100320/2024 ABELLO, TATIANA vs. N.Y. POST Page 8of8 Motion No. 003 004 005 006

[* 8] 8 of 8