26 Cited authorities

Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.
94 N.Y.2d 43 (N.Y. 1999) Cited 694 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that where the underlying tort theory fails, "there is no independent tort to provide a basis for liability under . . . concert of action, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting theories"
Freihofer v. Hearst Corp.
65 N.Y.2d 135 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 608 times
Holding that violation of confidentiality provisions of New York's Domestic Relations Law by publication of information contained in court papers in a divorce action was not capable of sustaining an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim
Stukuls v. State of New York
42 N.Y.2d 272 (N.Y. 1977) Cited 430 times
Holding that university president's publication of allegedly defamatory letter concerning teacher to the faculty evaluation committee considering tenure was not entitled to absolute privilege
Toker v. Pollak
44 N.Y.2d 211 (N.Y. 1978) Cited 301 times
Finding that statements made by defendant to District Attorney accusing plaintiff of possible commission of crime subject to qualified, not absolute privilege, and observing that statement made to police officer also subject to qualified privilege
Lacher v. Engel
33 A.D.3d 10 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) Cited 119 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that an attorney's statement in an article that his client was "poorly served by a member of [the legal] profession to whom duty came well after other aims and interests" was a fair and true report of the malpractice action filed against the client's former attorney (alteration in original)
Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.
252 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998) Cited 144 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding the proposed class action "unmanageable because of the individual issues of reliance, causation and damages with respect to each of the [class members]"
Park Knoll Assoc. v. Schmidt
59 N.Y.2d 205 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 215 times 1 Legal Analyses
Describing New York's litigants' privilege
Rinaldi v. Viking Penguin
52 N.Y.2d 422 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 98 times
Holding republication exception to statute of limitations does not apply if defendant has no knowledge of and plays no decision-making role in the republication
Martirano v. Frost
25 N.Y.2d 505 (N.Y. 1969) Cited 129 times
Holding the privilege applies to statements of parties made in open court
Garson v. Hendlin
141 A.D.2d 55 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) Cited 59 times
Finding a qualified privilege where "the defendant was circumspect in her publication of the letter," sending it only to the probation officer who could best address defendant's concern about the lawful protection of the children involved

Front, Inc., Plaintiff,v.Philip Khalil, et al., Defendants.--------------------------------Philip Khalil, Third-Party Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. Kimmel, et al., Third-Party Respondents.

26 Cited authorities

Holding that where the underlying tort theory fails, "there is no independent tort to provide a basis for liability under . . . concert of action, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting theories"

Holding that violation of confidentiality provisions of New York's Domestic Relations Law by publication of information contained in court papers in a divorce action was not capable of sustaining an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim

Holding that university president's publication of allegedly defamatory letter concerning teacher to the faculty evaluation committee considering tenure was not entitled to absolute privilege

Finding that statements made by defendant to District Attorney accusing plaintiff of possible commission of crime subject to qualified, not absolute privilege, and observing that statement made to police officer also subject to qualified privilege

Finding that an attorney's statement in an article that his client was "poorly served by a member of [the legal] profession to whom duty came well after other aims and interests" was a fair and true report of the malpractice action filed against the client's former attorney (alteration in original)

Finding the proposed class action "unmanageable because of the individual issues of reliance, causation and damages with respect to each of the [class members]"

Describing New York's litigants' privilege

Holding republication exception to statute of limitations does not apply if defendant has no knowledge of and plays no decision-making role in the republication

Holding the privilege applies to statements of parties made in open court

Finding a qualified privilege where "the defendant was circumspect in her publication of the letter," sending it only to the probation officer who could best address defendant's concern about the lawful protection of the children involved