Hale v. Messineo
140 A.D.2d 410, 528 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4908
Opinion
Because the statements made by the defendant in her complaint to the New York City Police Department Civilian Complaint Review Board are protected by an absolute privilege (see, Magnus v Anpatiellos, 130 AD2d 719), the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs request for disclosure of these statements (see, Cirale v 80 Pine St. Corp., 35 NY2d 113, 117; Matter of Weinberg, 129 AD2d 126; Hoffman v Ro-San Manor, 73 AD2d 207). Weinstein, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hale v. Messineo, 140 A.D.2d 410, 528 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).
140 A.D.2d 410 (Hale v. Messineo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Cirale v. 80 Pine Street Corp.
316 N.E.2d 301 (New York Court of Appeals, 1974)
Hoffman v. Ro-San Manor
73 A.D.2d 207 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
In re Beiny
129 A.D.2d 126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Magnus v. Anpatiellos
130 A.D.2d 719 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)