From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cerick v. MTB Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 1997
240 A.D.2d 274 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 17, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.).


The alleged statement made by defendant president of defendant bank to various bank regulators and investigators referring to the bank's failure to file over 4,000 currency transaction and monetary instrument reports, that plaintiff, the bank's then general counsel and vice-president, "should have caught it", was not a slander per se ( see, Amelkin v. Commercial Trading Co., 23 A.D.2d 830, affd 17 N.Y.2d 500). Nor should dismissal have awaited disclosure where the complaint was otherwise deficient in failing to allege in haec verba the particular defamatory words ( Gardner v. Alexander Rent-A-Car, 28 A.D.2d 667). In addition, the conduct elsewhere alleged "fall[s] short of the rigorous standard of outrageous conduct necessary to maintain a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress", and it appears that plaintiff is attempting to circumvent the employee at will discharge rule by pleading such distress ( Jaffe v. National League for Nursing, 222 A.D.2d 233). Plaintiff's cross motion to disqualify defendants' law firm was properly denied ( see, Talvy v American Red Cross, 205 A.D.2d 143, affd 87 N.Y.2d 826).

Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

Cerick v. MTB Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 1997
240 A.D.2d 274 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Cerick v. MTB Bank

Case Details

Full title:M. RICHARD CERICK, Appellant, v. MTB BANK et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 17, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 274 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 311

Citing Cases

Roth v. United Fedn. of Teachers

In fact, it is unclear from the complaint which statements are considered by plaintiff to be defamatory,…

Roth v. TEACHERS UNITED FEDN.

In fact, it is unclear from the complaint which statements are considered by plaintiff to be defamatory,…