Chutko v. Ben-Ami

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chutko v. Ben-Ami

2017 NY Slip Op 4077, 150 A.D.3d 582, 55 N.Y.S.3d 203

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

DecidedMay 23, 2017

Docket157639/15 4070 4069

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4077 (Chutko v. Ben-Ami) 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

Chutko v. Ben-Ami, 2017 NY Slip Op 4077, 150 A.D.3d 582, 55 N.Y.S.3d 203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered July 8, 2016, in the attorney action, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered August 11, 2016, in the estate action, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claims against the attorneys (defamation and tortious interference with contract) were correctly dismissed, because the attorneys’ letter was “pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation” as established by irrefutable documentary evidence *583 (see Front, Inc. v Khalil, 24 NY3d 713, 715 [2015]). Plaintiffs failed to show that the litigation, commenced in Surrogate’s Court by the Estate of Marjorie Strider to recover certain artwork, was not brought in good faith. Indeed, the Surrogate’s Court found that there were reasonable grounds to inquire into the Estate’s claim of ownership to the work.

The claims against the Estate and its executor, based on the same attorneys’ letter, were correctly dismissed as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (Alamo v McDaniel, 44 AD3d 149, 153 [1st Dept 2007]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Debra A. James, J.), entered July 8, 2016, in the attorney action, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered August 11, 2016, in the estate action, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claims against the attorneys (defamation and tortious interference with contract) were correctly dismissed, because the attorneys’ letter was “pertinent to a good faith anticipated litigation” as established by irrefutable documentary evidence *583 (see Front, Inc. v Khalil, 24 NY3d 713, 715 [2015]). Plaintiffs failed to show that the litigation, commenced in Surrogate’s Court by the Estate of Marjorie Strider to recover certain artwork, was not brought in good faith. Indeed, the Surrogate’s Court found that there were reasonable grounds to inquire into the Estate’s claim of ownership to the work.

The claims against the Estate and its executor, based on the same attorneys’ letter, were correctly dismissed as barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (Alamo v McDaniel, 44 AD3d 149, 153 [1st Dept 2007]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4077, 150 A.D.3d 582, 55 N.Y.S.3d 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chutko-v-ben-ami-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack