Polimeni v. Asbestos Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers' Local 78

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Polimeni v. Asbestos Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers' Local 78

89 A.D.3d 826, 932 N.Y.2d 350

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 826 (Polimeni v. Asbestos Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers' Local 78) 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

Polimeni v. Asbestos Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers' Local 78, 89 A.D.3d 826, 932 N.Y.2d 350 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

[827]*827As the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the first cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 for invasion of the plaintiff Vincent Polimeni’s right of privacy fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, as the flyer on which Polimeni’s name and photograph appeared was not used for advertising or trade purposes (see Kane v Orange County Publs., 232 AD2d 526, 526-527 [1996]; cf. Beverley v Choices Women’s Med. Ctr., 78 NY2d 745, 751 [1991]). Moreover, the flyer falls within the public interest exception to Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 (see Messenger v Gruner + Jahr Print. & Publ., 94 NY2d 436, 441 [2000]; Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135, 141 [1985]; Walter v NBC Tel. Network, Inc., 27 AD3d 1069, 1070-1071 [2006]; Creel v Crown Publs., 115 AD2d 414, 415-416 [1985]).

The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action to recover damages for defamation of Polimeni’s character. CPLR 3016 (a) requires that the allegedly defamatory material be set forth in the complaint. Although the flyer was annexed to the complaint (see Pappalardo v Westchester Rockland Newspapers, 101 AD2d 830 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 862 [1985]), a perusal of the flyer does not reveal the allegedly defamatory material and, thus, dismissal of that cause of action is required (see Black-Kelly v Marley, 83 AD3d 981 [2011]; Hausch v Clarke, 298 AD2d 429, 430 [2002]).

Finally, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action to permanently enjoin the defendant from trespassing on the property of the plaintiff Shelvin Plaza Associates, LLC (see Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v Sharf, 59 AD3d 403, 408 [2009]). Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

[827]*827As the Supreme Court correctly concluded, the first cause of action to recover damages pursuant to Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 for invasion of the plaintiff Vincent Polimeni’s right of privacy fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted, as the flyer on which Polimeni’s name and photograph appeared was not used for advertising or trade purposes (see Kane v Orange County Publs., 232 AD2d 526, 526-527 [1996]; cf. Beverley v Choices Women’s Med. Ctr., 78 NY2d 745, 751 [1991]). Moreover, the flyer falls within the public interest exception to Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 (see Messenger v Gruner + Jahr Print. & Publ., 94 NY2d 436, 441 [2000]; Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 NY2d 135, 141 [1985]; Walter v NBC Tel. Network, Inc., 27 AD3d 1069, 1070-1071 [2006]; Creel v Crown Publs., 115 AD2d 414, 415-416 [1985]).

The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the second cause of action to recover damages for defamation of Polimeni’s character. CPLR 3016 (a) requires that the allegedly defamatory material be set forth in the complaint. Although the flyer was annexed to the complaint (see Pappalardo v Westchester Rockland Newspapers, 101 AD2d 830 [1984], affd 64 NY2d 862 [1985]), a perusal of the flyer does not reveal the allegedly defamatory material and, thus, dismissal of that cause of action is required (see Black-Kelly v Marley, 83 AD3d 981 [2011]; Hausch v Clarke, 298 AD2d 429, 430 [2002]).

Finally, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action to permanently enjoin the defendant from trespassing on the property of the plaintiff Shelvin Plaza Associates, LLC (see Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v Sharf, 59 AD3d 403, 408 [2009]). Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 826, 932 N.Y.2d 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/polimeni-v-asbestos-lead-hazardous-waste-laborers-local-78-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack