Hulse v. Heckman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hulse v. Heckman

298 A.D.2d 361, 751 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9423

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 361 (Hulse v. Heckman) 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

Hulse v. Heckman, 298 A.D.2d 361, 751 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injurious falsehood, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated October 26, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 20, 2001, which denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendant.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint (see NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 87 NY2d 614; Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135; Curiano v Suozzi, 63 NY2d 113; Meyer v Guinta, 262 AD2d 463, 464; CPLR 3016 [a]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for injurious falsehood, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated October 26, 2001, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 20, 2001, which denied the plaintiff’s motion for leave to renew.

Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendant.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint (see NBT Bancorp v Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, 87 NY2d 614; Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135; Curiano v Suozzi, 63 NY2d 113; Meyer v Guinta, 262 AD2d 463, 464; CPLR 3016 [a]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 361, 751 N.Y.S.2d 393, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hulse-v-heckman-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack