Rowbotham v. Wachenfeld
This text of 2021 NY Slip Op 03125 (Rowbotham v. Wachenfeld) 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
| Rowbotham v Wachenfeld |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 03125 |
| Decided on May 13, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: May 13, 2021
Before: Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ.
Index No. 152281/18 Appeal No. 13841 Case No. 2020-04992
v
Jeff Wachenfeld, Defendant-Respondent, Nuts & Boltz Works, Inc., Doing Business as Westhampton True Value Hardware, Defendant.
Law Offices of Steven Beispel, New York (Steven Beispel of counsel), for appellant.
Lewis John Avallone Aviles LLP, New York (Kevin D. Clinton of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Benjamin Cohen, J.), entered on or about June 29, 2020, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Nuts & Boltz Works, Inc. d/b/a Westhampton True Value Hardware's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it and, upon a search of the record, dismissed the complaint as against defendant Wachenfeld, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Facebook post, "Jim is a crook. Worst Company to do business with," is an expression of opinion and therefore not actionable (see e.g. Schwartz v Nordstrom, Inc., 160 AD2d 240, 241 [1st Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 711 [1990]; Cardali v Slater, 167 AD3d 476 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 33 NY3d 901 [2019]; Galasso v Saltzman, 42 AD3d 310, 311 [1st Dept 2007]). Nothing in the post implies that there exist undisclosed facts that would support the opinion (see e.g. Giffuni v Feingold, 299 AD2d 265 [1st Dept 2002]; Guerrero v Carva, 10 AD3d 105, 112-113 [1st Dept 2004]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: May 13, 2021
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2021 NY Slip Op 03125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowbotham-v-wachenfeld-nyappdiv-2021.