Cangro v. Reitano

92 A.D.3d 483, 937 N.Y.2d 856

Opinion

Because this action raises the same claims as those raised in a previous action that was dismissed as time-barred, it is foreclosed by res judicata (see Ginezra Assoc. LLC v Ifantopoulos, 70 AD3d 427, 429 [2010]; CPLR 3211 [a] [5]). In any event, the complaint states no causes of action upon which relief may be granted, as it merely sets forth bare legal conclusions (see Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-N.Y. News Syndicate, 204 AD2d 233 [1994]; CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). Moreover, even considering the merits of the defamation claims, the alleged defamatory statements were privileged as they were made in the course of court proceedings (see Mintz & Gold, LLP v Zimmerman, 56 AD3d 358, 359 [2008]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P, Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and Román, JJ

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

Cangro v. Reitano, 92 A.D.3d 483, 937 N.Y.2d 856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

92 A.D.3d 483 (Cangro v. Reitano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ginezra Associates LLC v. Ifantopoulos
70 A.D.3d 427 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Caniglia v. Chicago Tribune-New York News Syndicate Inc.
204 A.D.2d 233 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)