From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ticketmaster Corp. v. Lidsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1997
245 A.D.2d 142 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 16, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).


In this tort action, the IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiffs' causes of action for defamation on the grounds that the allegations made in the complaints in previous class actions were absolutely privileged since they were pertinent and relevant to those proceedings ( see, Park Knoll Assocs. v. Schmidt, 59 N.Y.2d 205, 209) "by any view or under any circumstances" ( Martirano v. Frost, 25 N.Y.2d 505, 507), and "the protection is complete, irrespective of the motive with which [the words were] used" ( Marsh v. Ellsworth, 50 N.Y. 309, 311-312). Further, contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, defendants did not disseminate or deliver copies of the complaints to the public or the media ( see, Williams v. Williams, 23 N.Y.2d 592, 599; Bridge C.A.T. Scan Assocs. v. Ohio-Nuclear, Inc., 608 F. Supp. 1187, 1195).

The motion court also properly dismissed the tenth cause of action alleging prima facie tort since the basis for such claim cannot be a lawsuit ( see, Curiano v. Suozzi, 63 N.Y.2d 113, 118), the class actions were not based on "disinterested malevolence" ( WFB Telecommunications v. NYNEX Corp., 188 A.D.2d 257, 258, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 709), and plaintiff's failed to itemize special damages ( see, Leather Dev. Corp. v. Dun Bradstreet, 15 A.D.2d 761, affd 12 N.Y.2d 909). The eleventh cause of action for interference with economic relations was also properly dismissed for failure to show that defendants' "sole motive was to inflict injury and that [defendants] employed unlawful means to do so" ( Nifty Foods Corp. v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 614 F.2d 832, 838).

Finally, since the "[a]ssertion of unfounded allegations in a pleading, even if made for improper purposes, does not provide a basis for liability under [Judiciary Law § 487]" ( Thomas v. Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer Greenfield, 115 A.D.2d 999, 1000, appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 1005), Supreme Court properly dismissed the twelfth cause of action.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.


Summaries of

Ticketmaster Corp. v. Lidsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 16, 1997
245 A.D.2d 142 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Ticketmaster Corp. v. Lidsky

Case Details

Full title:TICKETMASTER CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. CARLOS LIDSKY et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 16, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 142 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
665 N.Y.S.2d 666

Citing Cases

Sexter v. Margrabe

We note that all communications between the Margrabes themselves, on any subject, were absolutely privileged…

Gavrilov v. Slinim

Similarly, the alleged false statements attributed to Orezzoli, which again are not specified in the…