Labarge v. Holmes

3 Citing cases

  1. Litwin v. Hammond Hanlon Camp, LLC

    65 Misc. 3d 1202 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)   Cited 3 times

    In the context of civil claims, intent means an act is done with the purpose of accomplishing a result or with knowledge that to a "substantial certainty" such a result will ensue (seeAcevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co., 189 AD2d 497, 501 [1st Dept 1993] ; McGroarty v. Great American Ins. Co., 43 AD2d 368 [2d Dept 1974] ). Here, given the sensitive nature of the images, that they were obtained by Michael while he was in a relationship with Plaintiff, that he is alleged to have distributed them after the relationship ended to his brother, Gregory, and that the images ultimately were seen by Plaintiff's former co-workers, malicious motive can, for pleading purposes, be found both circumstantially and by implication (cf.Pezhman v. City of New York , 29 AD3d 164, 168 [1st Dept 2006] ; Herlihy v. Metropolitan Museum of Art , 214 AD2d 250, 260-261 ; see alsoLaBarge v. Holmes , 30 AD3d 1087 [4th Dept 2006] ).

  2. Sagaille v. Carrega

    2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 32660 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2019)

    Here, Plaintiff accuses Carrega of falsely pressing criminal charges against him by reporting to the police that he sexual attacked her (see NYSCEF Document #18, page 3, paragraphs 16, 18). From such accusations of reprehensible criminal conduct, common-law malice and constitutional actual malice may be inferred (see Pezhman, v City of New York, supra at 168; Herlihy v Metropolitan Museum of Art, supra at 260-261 [An inference of malice is warranted from a statement that is so extravagant in its denunciations or so vituperative in its character]; see also LaBarge v Holmes, 30 AD3d 1087 [4th Dept 2006]). In any event, in the amended complaint, Plaintiff set forth Carrega's purported motivation for doing so, to wit that Carrega made false allegations against the him, because she saw an opportunity to further her career by creating a false sex crimes story against an assistant district attorney whose job it was to prosecute sex crimes (see generally Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 439 [1977][Malice refers to the speaker's motivation for making the defamatory statements]).

  3. Lebaron v. Erie Ins. Co.

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 52588 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007)

    Construing the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds Defendant Piontkowski's qualified privilege is not overcome by the vague and conclusory allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint that the statements to the police were made with ill will or with a high degree of awareness of their probable falsity. Doherty v. New York Telephone Company, 202 AD2d 627 (2nd Dept, 1994); East Point Collision Works, Inc., v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 271 AD2d 471; cf, Labarge v. Holmes, 30 AD3d 1087 (4th Dept, 2006); Kondo-Dresser v.Buffalo Public Schools , 17 AD3d 1114. D. PUNITIVE DAMAGES