Waldron v. Lutheran Social Services of Upper New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waldron v. Lutheran Social Services of Upper New York, Inc.

207 A.D.2d 1027, 617 N.Y.S.2d 665

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 30, 1994·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in response to defendants’ [1028]*1028showing that the statements made by defendant Norman Berg were subject to a qualified privilege and were not made with malice (see, Stukuls v State of New York, 42 NY2d 272, 279; McDowell v Dart, 201 AD2d 895). Additionally, plaintiff’s cause of action for intentional interference with contractual rights fails because plaintiff, an at-will employee, offered no proof that defendants made any fraudulent misrepresentations or threats or violated any duty owed to plaintiff based on a confidential relationship (see, Miller v Richman, 184 AD2d 191, 194). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in response to defendants’ [1028]*1028showing that the statements made by defendant Norman Berg were subject to a qualified privilege and were not made with malice (see, Stukuls v State of New York, 42 NY2d 272, 279; McDowell v Dart, 201 AD2d 895). Additionally, plaintiff’s cause of action for intentional interference with contractual rights fails because plaintiff, an at-will employee, offered no proof that defendants made any fraudulent misrepresentations or threats or violated any duty owed to plaintiff based on a confidential relationship (see, Miller v Richman, 184 AD2d 191, 194). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Cass, Jr., J.—Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Fallon, Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Waldron v. Lutheran Social Services of Upper New York, Inc., 207 A.D.2d 1027, 617 N.Y.S.2d 665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

207 A.D.2d 1027 (Waldron v. Lutheran Social Services of Upper New York, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related