Congel v. Malfitano
Opinion of the Court
In an action, inter alia,
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof granting the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm the referee’s report and directing the defendant to pay the referee’s fee and substituting therefor provisions denying that motion and directing the plaintiffs to pay one half of the referee’s fee and the defendant to pay one half of the referee’s fee; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, in granting leave to amend the complaint to add a cause of action alleging trade libel, the Supreme Court properly concluded that that cause of action was pleaded with particularity (see CPLR 3016 [a]; cf. Fusco v Fusco, 36 AD3d 589, 591 [2007]). The defendant’s contention that the language quoted in the complaint is not defamatory is improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief (see Borbeck v Hercules Constr. Corp., 48 AD3d 498, 499 [2008]; Cappiello v Johnson, 21 AD3d 921, 922 [2005]).
The Supreme Court improperly granted the plaintiffs’ motion to confirm a referee’s report awarding them costs and disbursements and improperly directed the defendant to pay all of the referee’s fee. The plaintiffs should have been directed to pay one half of the referee’s fee (see Congel v Malfitano, 61 AD 3d 807 [2009] [decided herewith]). Spolzino, J.P, Covello, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.