Liere v. Paini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liere v. Paini

54 A.D.3d 824, 863 N.Y.S.2d 373

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.3d 824 (Liere v. Paini) 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

Liere v. Paini, 54 A.D.3d 824, 863 N.Y.S.2d 373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated June 5, 2007, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim alleging that the action violated Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a and 76-a.

[825]*825Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In response to the plaintiffs prima facie showing that he is not a “public applicant or permittee” as defined by Civil Rights Law § 76-a (1) (b), the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim alleging that the instant action constituted an impermissible strategic lawsuit against public participation (see Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a, 76-a [1] [b]; Gill Farms v Darrow, 256 AD2d 995, 997-998 [1998]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated June 5, 2007, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim alleging that the action violated Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a and 76-a.

[825]*825Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In response to the plaintiffs prima facie showing that he is not a “public applicant or permittee” as defined by Civil Rights Law § 76-a (1) (b), the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim alleging that the instant action constituted an impermissible strategic lawsuit against public participation (see Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a, 76-a [1] [b]; Gill Farms v Darrow, 256 AD2d 995, 997-998 [1998]). Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.3d 824, 863 N.Y.S.2d 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liere-v-paini-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack