Braverman v. Halpern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braverman v. Halpern

259 A.D.2d 306, 684 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2383

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 306 (Braverman v. Halpern) 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

Braverman v. Halpern, 259 A.D.2d 306, 684 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2383 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 17, 1998, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate his default in opposing defendant’s prior motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied on the ground that the allegedly defamatory statements are nonactionable, since they are contained in reports concerning plaintiffs psychological and emotional problems that were prepared by defendant as an expert witness in a judicial proceeding involving child custody and visitation in which plaintiffs mental condition was pertinent (Finkelstein v Bodek, 131 AD2d 337). We would add that plaintiff’s attorney also failed to establish a sufficient excuse for the default. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered March 17, 1998, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate his default in opposing defendant’s prior motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion was properly denied on the ground that the allegedly defamatory statements are nonactionable, since they are contained in reports concerning plaintiffs psychological and emotional problems that were prepared by defendant as an expert witness in a judicial proceeding involving child custody and visitation in which plaintiffs mental condition was pertinent (Finkelstein v Bodek, 131 AD2d 337). We would add that plaintiff’s attorney also failed to establish a sufficient excuse for the default. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 306, 684 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braverman-v-halpern-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack