Galison v. Greenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galison v. Greenberg

51 A.D.3d 466, 856 N.Y.S.2d 622

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

DecidedMay 6, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.3d 466 (Galison v. Greenberg) 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

Galison v. Greenberg, 51 A.D.3d 466, 856 N.Y.S.2d 622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered March 29, 2007, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing causes of action for defamation and tortious interference with contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The defamation cause of action was properly dismissed on findings that the letter on which it is based is protected by the common interest privilege, and that plaintiff failed to adduce evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to defendants’ malice (see Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 437-438 [1992]). [467]*467The tortious interference with contract claim was properly dismissed for lack of evidence of a valid contract (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]). We have considered plaintiffs arguments, including that further disclosure might reveal the existence of material facts warranting the denial of summary judgment on these claims, and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered March 29, 2007, which granted defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing causes of action for defamation and tortious interference with contract, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The defamation cause of action was properly dismissed on findings that the letter on which it is based is protected by the common interest privilege, and that plaintiff failed to adduce evidence sufficient to raise an issue of fact as to defendants’ malice (see Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 437-438 [1992]). [467]*467The tortious interference with contract claim was properly dismissed for lack of evidence of a valid contract (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 424 [1996]). We have considered plaintiffs arguments, including that further disclosure might reveal the existence of material facts warranting the denial of summary judgment on these claims, and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 466, 856 N.Y.S.2d 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galison-v-greenberg-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack