From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commodari v. Long Island University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Summary

affirming dismissal under CPLR 3211 of claims for defamation and tortious interference

Summary of this case from Duane Reade, Inc. v. Clark

Opinion

01-04199

Submitted April 30, 2002

June 3, 2002

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, tortious interference with prospective employment and economic and contractual relations, defamation, and harassment, brought by a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), entered May 30, 2000, as granted the cross motion of the defendant Donald Rogers pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against him.

Fernando Commodari, Carrollton, Ga., appellant pro se.

Wrobel Markham Schatz, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Daniel F. Markham of counsel), for respondent.

Cullen and Dykman, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. (Thomas S. Baylis of counsel), for defendants.

A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., NANCY E. SMITH, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly granted the cross motion of the defendant Donald Rogers to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against him. The plaintiff failed to set forth the elements required to establish a cause of action alleging fraud (see Foster v. Churchill, 87 N.Y.2d 744; Stukuls v. State of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 272; Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 7 N.Y.2d 56; Cohen v. Houseconnect Realty Corp., 289 A.D.2d 277; 113-14 Owners Corp. v. Gertz, 123 A.D.2d 850), defamation, or tortious interference with prospective employment and/or economic and contractual relations (see Foster v. Churchill, supra; Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 90). The plaintiff's cause of action alleging harassment is simply a repetition of his defamation and tortious interference causes of action, neither of which is viable (see McNaughton v. City of New York, 234 A.D.2d 83; Mock v. LaGuardia Hospital-Hip Hosp., 117 A.D.2d 721).

PRUDENTI, P.J., SMITH, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Commodari v. Long Island University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 3, 2002
295 A.D.2d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

affirming dismissal under CPLR 3211 of claims for defamation and tortious interference

Summary of this case from Duane Reade, Inc. v. Clark
Case details for

Commodari v. Long Island University

Case Details

Full title:FERNANDO COMMODARI, ETC., appellant, v. LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY, ET AL.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 3, 2002

Citations

295 A.D.2d 302 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
742 N.Y.S.2d 905

Citing Cases

Duane Reade, Inc. v. Clark

Under that subdivision, the court in determining such a motion must presume the facts pleaded to be true and…