Rosen v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
This text of 11 A.D.3d 524 (Rosen v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.) 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.
Opinion
[525]*525In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and based on products liability, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.), dated March 18, 2003, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the fourth cause of action and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Since a civil conspiracy cause of action requires a showing of intentional conduct, negligence cannot serve as the underlying tort (see Sackman v Liggett Group, Inc., 965 F Supp 391, 395 [ED NY 1997]). Accordingly, summary judgment should have been granted dismissing that cause of action.
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., H. Miller, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 A.D.3d 524, 782 N.Y.S.2d 795, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-brown-williamson-tobacco-corp-nyappdiv-2004.