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

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1994

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 1027 (Waldron v. Lutheran Social Services of Upper New York, 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 1027, 617 N.Y.S.2d 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldron-v-lutheran-social-services-of-upper-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack