Opinion
2003-03153.
Decided June 7, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lewis, J.), dated November 8, 2002, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
McManus, Collura Richter, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Christopher D. Skoczen of counsel), for appellant.
Glyne Leon Harper, Brooklyn, N.Y., respondent pro se.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, PETER B. SKELOS, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
Glyne Leon Harper commenced this action to recover damages for slander, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and abuse of process against, among others, the defendant Jan V. Farensbach. Farensbach was an attorney representing nonparty Beverley Clarke, a/k/a Beverly Clarke, as the plaintiff in a related action Clarke commenced against, among others, Harper, inter alia, to rescind a real property transfer that Clarke alleged Harper had induced by fraud.
Farensbach made a prima facie showing that certain allegedly slanderous statements Harper claimed Farensbach made were uttered in the course of judicial proceedings, and were material and pertinent to those proceedings. Thus, the statements were privileged ( see Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330). In opposition, Harper failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Walton v. Markan, 262 A.D.2d 478). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for slander.
Further, Farensbach made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the causes of action to recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress and abuse of process. In opposition, Harper failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 122; Curiano v. Suozzi, 63 N.Y.2d 113; Nesenoff v. Dinerstein Lesser, P.C., 5 A.D.3d 746). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in denying that branch of the motion which was for summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.
The parties' remaining contentions either are unnecessary to address in light of the foregoing, or without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., H. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and SKELOS, JJ., concur.