Durepo v. Flower City Television Corp.

147 A.D.2d 934, 537 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1172
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 1989·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinions

Order insofar as appealed from, modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendants appeal from so much of the order of Special Term as denied their motion for summary [935]*935judgment dismissing the complaint. For reasons stated by Special Term (Houston, J.), in its memorandum decision, we agree that the cause of action for defamation should not be dismissed on motion because triable issues have been raised. We conclude, however, that the court should have dismissed plaintiffs cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This cause of action is redundant to the defamation action and any damages for emotional distress are recoverable on the defamation cause of action (see, Rozanski v Fitch, 113 AD2d 1010).

All concur, except Lawton, J., who dissents and votes to grant summary judgment dismissing the complaint, in the following memorandum.

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

Durepo v. Flower City Television Corp., 147 A.D.2d 934, 537 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1172 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

147 A.D.2d 934 (Durepo v. Flower City Television Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bondarevsky v. Shamis Chiropractic P.C.
2024 NY Slip Op 50916(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Byrnes v. Byrnes
D. New Mexico, 2022
Idema v. Wager
120 F. Supp. 2d 361 (S.D. New York, 2000)
Herlihy v. Metropolitan Museum of Art
214 A.D.2d 250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)