Martinson v. Blau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martinson v. Blau

292 A.D.2d 234, 738 N.Y.S.2d 572, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2473

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 234 (Martinson v. Blau) 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

Martinson v. Blau, 292 A.D.2d 234, 738 N.Y.S.2d 572, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2473 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about November 22, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ claims for professional malpractice, breach of contract and prima facie tort, premised on the allegation that defendant gave false testimony in a New Jersey action, were [235]*235properly dismissed, since “[a] witness at a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding enjoys an absolute privilege with respect to his or her testimony” (see, Pfeiffer v Hoffman, 251 AD2d 94, 95). Although there is an exception to this privilege where the testimony is part of a larger scheme to defraud (see, Newin Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217), plaintiffs have not alleged facts from which a larger fraudulent design may be inferred. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered on or about November 22, 2000, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ claims for professional malpractice, breach of contract and prima facie tort, premised on the allegation that defendant gave false testimony in a New Jersey action, were [235]*235properly dismissed, since “[a] witness at a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding enjoys an absolute privilege with respect to his or her testimony” (see, Pfeiffer v Hoffman, 251 AD2d 94, 95). Although there is an exception to this privilege where the testimony is part of a larger scheme to defraud (see, Newin Corp. v Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217), plaintiffs have not alleged facts from which a larger fraudulent design may be inferred. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 234, 738 N.Y.S.2d 572, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinson-v-blau-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack