Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Commodari v. Long Island University

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 3, 2002

295 A.D.2d 302; 742 N.Y.S.2d 905; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5782

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

Hartford Casualty Insurance v. Vengroff Williams & Associates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Crown Associates, Inc. v. Zot, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Castro v. East End Plastic, Reconstructive & Hand Surgery, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Spencer v. Green (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Asgahar v. Tringali Realty, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Duane Reade, Inc. v. Clark (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, tortious interference with prospective employment and economic and contractual relations, defamation, and harassment, brought by a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.), entered May 30, 2000, as granted the cross motion of the defendant Donald Rogers pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

*303The Supreme Court correctly granted the cross motion of the defendant Donald Rogers to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against him. The plaintiff failed to set forth the elements required to establish a cause of action alleging fraud (see Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744; Stukuls v State of New York, 42 NY2d 272; Shapiro v Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 7 NY2d 56; Cohen v Houseconnect Realty Corp., 289 AD2d 277; 113-14 Owners Corp. v Gertz, 123 AD2d 850), defamation, or tortious interference with prospective employment and/or economic and contractual relations (see Foster v Churchill, supra; Kronos, Inc. v AVX Corp., 81 NY2d 90). The plaintiff’s cause of action alleging harassment is simply a repetition of his defamation and tortious interference causes of action, neither of which is viable (see McNaughton v City of New York, 234 AD2d 83; Mock v LaGuardia Hosp. Hip Hosp., 117 AD2d 721). Prudenti, P.J., Smith, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.