From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell v. Little

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1998
250 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Summary

In Bell (supra), the Court found that plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that defendant inscribed false and malicious statements on building exteriors and sidewalks, was not a SLAPP suit.

Summary of this case from ST. BEAT v. NATL MOBILIZATION

Opinion

May 19, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.)


The IAS Court Properly found that plaintiffs complaint, alleging that defendant inscribed false and malicious statements on building exteriors and sidewalks, did not affect defendants rights of public petition and participation before public agencies and, accordingly, did not offend Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a Civ. Rights and 76-a Civ. Rights ( see, Harfenes v. Sea Gate Assn., 167 Misc.2d 647, 650-651), much less warrant application of the special summary adjudication standards set forth in CPLR 3212 (h).

The court also properly denied defendants motion for summary judgment since at least some of the language in the inscriptions was reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning and was neither pure opinion nor nonactionable invective ( see, Parks v. Steinbrenner, 131 A.D.2d 60, 62). Plaintiff also set forth specific details and expert evidence sufficient to meet his burden of raising genuine issues of fact as to the veracity of the challenged statements and their publication by defendant ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).

In addition, the court correctly found that defendant had waived his claim of lack of personal jurisdiction by interposing unrelated counterclaims ( see, Textile Technology Exch. v. Davis, 81 N.Y.2d 56; Liebling v. Yankwitt, 109 A.D.2d 780).

Finally, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant leave to amend his answer to add a third proposed counterclaim for abuse of process and/or malicious prosecution. The subject proposed counterclaim was factually unsupported and manifestly without merit ( see, Smith v. Bessen, 161 A.D.2d 847, 848).

We have considered defendants remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Bell v. Little

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 19, 1998
250 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

In Bell (supra), the Court found that plaintiff's complaint, which alleged that defendant inscribed false and malicious statements on building exteriors and sidewalks, was not a SLAPP suit.

Summary of this case from ST. BEAT v. NATL MOBILIZATION
Case details for

Bell v. Little

Case Details

Full title:EVAN BELL, Respondent, v. FREDERICK J. LITTLE, Also Known as RICK LITTLE…

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

Date published: May 19, 1998

Citations

250 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
673 N.Y.S.2d 402

Citing Cases

Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim Radin, Inc. v. Village

In sum since the defendants' rights to free exercise of speech, petition and association were not implicated…

USI Sys. AG v. Gliklad

While his defense that the loan agreement was fabricated was certainly relevant to the jurisdictional defense…