§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

4 Cited authorities

  1. Park Knoll Assoc. v. Schmidt

    59 N.Y.2d 205 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 216 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing New York's litigants' privilege

  2. Officemax Inc. v. Cinotti

    966 F. Supp. 2d 74 (E.D.N.Y. 2013)   Cited 7 times

    No. 12–CV–5075 (ADS)(ETB). 2013-04-29 OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. Richard CINOTTI, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Steward PC, by: Sharon P. Margello, Esq., Jennifer A. Rygiel–Boyd, Esq., of Counsel, New York, NY, for OfficeMax Incorporated. Nixon Peabody LLP, by: James W. Weller, Esq., Kurt Michael Mullen, Esq., Matthew Thomas McLaughlin, Esq., of Counsel, Jericho, NY, for Richard Cinotti. SPATT Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Steward

  3. Vodopia v. Ziff-Davis Publishing Company

    243 A.D.2d 368 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    October 23, 1997 Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.). Plaintiff's defamation cause of action, which is premised upon the contents of a letter written by opposing counsel and sent to plaintiff and directly to plaintiff's client during the course of negotiations to settle a copyright lawsuit threatened by plaintiff's client, was properly dismissed by the court on the ground that the letter was absolutely privileged ( Caplan v Winslett, 218 A.D.2d 148, 153; see also, Lieberman

  4. Youmans v. Smith

    153 N.Y. 214 (N.Y. 1897)   Cited 223 times
    Acknowledging that "the privilege that protected [the attorney] also protected his agents and employees in whatever they did at his request that he could have lawfully done himself."