Braverman v. Yelp, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Braverman v. Yelp, Inc.

128 A.D.3d 568, 10 N.Y.S.3d 203

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

DecidedMay 21, 2015

Docket15189 158299/13

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 128 A.D.3d 568 (Braverman v. Yelp, Inc.) 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. Yelp, Inc., 128 A.D.3d 568, 10 N.Y.S.3d 203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered February 25, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, but declined to award costs, sanctions and attorney’s fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs defamation claims based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel since plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this claim in a prior action (see Misek-Falkoff v American Lawyer Media, 300 AD2d 215, 216 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 508 [2003]). With respect to the additional causes of action, plaintiff failed to sufficiently state the claims for breach of contract and violations of General Business Law §§ 349 (a) and 350.

To the extent plaintiffs allegations support a claim for fraudulent inducement, they must be brought in a different forum in accordance with the forum selection clause contained in the advertising agreement entered into by the parties. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing that the forum selection clause should not be enforced (see Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530, 534 [1996]).

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in declining to award defendant costs and attorney’s fees. Defendant failed to show that plaintiffs conduct in commencing this action was frivolous (see Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1; Grozea v Lagoutova, 67 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered February 25, 2014, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, but declined to award costs, sanctions and attorney’s fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly dismissed plaintiffs defamation claims based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel since plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate this claim in a prior action (see Misek-Falkoff v American Lawyer Media, 300 AD2d 215, 216 [1st Dept 2002], lv denied 100 NY2d 508 [2003]). With respect to the additional causes of action, plaintiff failed to sufficiently state the claims for breach of contract and violations of General Business Law §§ 349 (a) and 350.

To the extent plaintiffs allegations support a claim for fraudulent inducement, they must be brought in a different forum in accordance with the forum selection clause contained in the advertising agreement entered into by the parties. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing that the forum selection clause should not be enforced (see Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530, 534 [1996]).

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in declining to award defendant costs and attorney’s fees. Defendant failed to show that plaintiffs conduct in commencing this action was frivolous (see Rules of Chief Admin of Cts [22 NYCRR] § 130-1.1; Grozea v Lagoutova, 67 AD3d 611 [1st Dept 2009]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.3d 568, 10 N.Y.S.3d 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braverman-v-yelp-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack