Rosenberg v. Home Box Office, Inc.

33 A.D.3d 550, 822 N.Y.S.2d 921
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 26, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 33 A.D.3d 550 (Rosenberg v. Home Box Office, Inc.) 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
Rosenberg v. Home Box Office, Inc., 33 A.D.3d 550, 822 N.Y.S.2d 921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered March 6, 2006, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissing the third and fourth causes of action and dismissing the complaint outright as against defendant Time Warner, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 8, 2006, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss as indicated, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The defamation cause of action was insufficiently pleaded. Plaintiff failed to plead the time, place and manner in which the alleged words were stated, or any specifics as to third persons to whom the words were communicated (see Williams v Varig Brazilian Airlines, 169 AD2d 434, 437 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 854 [1991]). The court properly declined to consider the belated assertion of injurious falsehood, for which we note that plaintiff failed to plead injury to any legally protected property interest (Miller v Richman, 184 AD2d 191, 194 [1992]) or special damages (Rail v Heilman, 284 AD2d 113, 114 [2001]). As to the promissory estoppel claim, plaintiff failed to plead a promised personal action by the individual defendant, or reasonable, detrimental reliance on any such promise.

Because the defamation and injurious falsehood claims are [551]*551without merit, whether or not those claims apply to Time Warner is academic. Plaintiffs argument that he pleaded breach of contract against that party is made for the first time on appeal, in contradiction to a concession made to the motion court, as quoted in the order on appeal. Were we to consider the argument, we would reject it. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Marlow, Sullivan and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

Irrera v. Bernstein Equity Partners, LLC
2025 NY Slip Op 31734(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
Galarza v. City of New York
2024 NY Slip Op 04603 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Stolzman v. 210 Riverside Tenants, Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 03563 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
DiCoby v. Syracuse Univ.
2021 NY Slip Op 00622 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Cambridge Invs. LLC v. Prophecy Asset Mgt., LP
2020 NY Slip Op 06703 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Jackie's Enters., Inc. v. Belleville
2018 NY Slip Op 7225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Schroeder v. Pinterest Inc.
133 A.D.3d 12 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Leff v. TIAA-CREF Life Insurance
81 A.D.3d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Thome v. Alexander & Louisa Calder Foundation
70 A.D.3d 88 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 A.D.3d 550, 822 N.Y.S.2d 921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-home-box-office-inc-nyappdiv-2006.