Walls v. Town of Islip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Walls v. Town of Islip

71 A.D.3d 669, 894 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 669 (Walls v. Town of Islip) 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

Walls v. Town of Islip, 71 A.D.3d 669, 894 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation and for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs home has never been used as a multi-family dwelling, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated July 7, 2008, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[670]*670Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]) by establishing, inter alia, that the government officials who made the allegedly defamatory statements were entitled to an absolute privilege against claims of defamation (see Bisaccia v Funicello, 149 AD2d 645 [1989]; cf. Baumblatt v Battalia, 134 AD2d 226, 228-229 [1987]), and that the remedy of declaratory judgment was not available in this case (cf. Reed v Littleton, 275 NY 150, 157 [1937]; Cooper v Town of Islip, 56 AD3d 511, 512-513 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History; 2008 NY Slip Op 3221KU).]

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation and for a judgment declaring that the plaintiffs home has never been used as a multi-family dwelling, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated July 7, 2008, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[670]*670Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]) by establishing, inter alia, that the government officials who made the allegedly defamatory statements were entitled to an absolute privilege against claims of defamation (see Bisaccia v Funicello, 149 AD2d 645 [1989]; cf. Baumblatt v Battalia, 134 AD2d 226, 228-229 [1987]), and that the remedy of declaratory judgment was not available in this case (cf. Reed v Littleton, 275 NY 150, 157 [1937]; Cooper v Town of Islip, 56 AD3d 511, 512-513 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d at 324). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History; 2008 NY Slip Op 3221KU).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 669, 894 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walls-v-town-of-islip-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack