Bisogno v. Borsa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bisogno v. Borsa

101 A.D.3d 780, 954 N.Y.2d 896

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 12, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 101 A.D.3d 780 (Bisogno v. Borsa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bisogno v. Borsa, 101 A.D.3d 780, 954 N.Y.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

[781]*781The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

“Statements made by parties, attorneys, and witnesses in the course of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, notwithstanding the motive with which they are made, so long as they are material and pertinent to the issue to be resolved in the proceeding” (Kilkenny v Law Off. of Cushner & Garvey, LLP, 76 AD3d 512, 513 [2010]; see Wiener v Weintraub, 22 NY2d 330 [1968]; Sinrod v Stone, 20 AD3d 560, 561 [2005]). Here, the allegedly defamatory statements were made in the course of either a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding and, as a matter of law, were material and pertinent to the issue to be resolved therein (see Kilkenny v Law Off. of Cushner & Garvey, LLP, 76 AD3d at 513). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that those statements were absolutely privileged (see Wiener v Weintraub, 22 NY2d at 331-332; Sinrod v Stone, 20 AD3d at 561). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging defamation.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[781]*781The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248 [1976]). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

“Statements made by parties, attorneys, and witnesses in the course of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, notwithstanding the motive with which they are made, so long as they are material and pertinent to the issue to be resolved in the proceeding” (Kilkenny v Law Off. of Cushner & Garvey, LLP, 76 AD3d 512, 513 [2010]; see Wiener v Weintraub, 22 NY2d 330 [1968]; Sinrod v Stone, 20 AD3d 560, 561 [2005]). Here, the allegedly defamatory statements were made in the course of either a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding and, as a matter of law, were material and pertinent to the issue to be resolved therein (see Kilkenny v Law Off. of Cushner & Garvey, LLP, 76 AD3d at 513). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly determined that those statements were absolutely privileged (see Wiener v Weintraub, 22 NY2d at 331-332; Sinrod v Stone, 20 AD3d at 561). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the cause of action alleging defamation.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 780, 954 N.Y.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bisogno-v-borsa-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack