Preview:

Guerrero v Carva
2002 NY Slip Op 30097(U)
April 5, 2002
Supreme Court, New York County
Docket Number: 104893/01
Judge: Barbara R. Kapnick
Republished from New York State Unified Court
System's E-Courts Service.
Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for
any additional information on this case.
This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official
publication.




[* 1 ]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK  - NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT:
Justice
MOTION DATE
MOTION SEQ. NO.
The following papers, numbered 1 to                                   were read on this motion
NUMBFRED
Notice of Motion/ Order to Show Cause  - Affidavits  - Exhibits ...
Answering Affidavits  - Exhibits
Replying Affidavits
                                                                                                 Cross-Motion:           Yes
                                                                                                                         Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this motion
0
I                                                                     -  I
a
W
a
o
Dated:
J .
Check one:                                                            FINAL DISPOSITION          NON-FINAL DISPOSITION




[* 2 ]
SUPREME  COURT OF  THE  STATE OF  NEW
COUNTY  OF  NEW  YORK                                                   IA  PART
                                                                        X
                                                                        WILLIAM GUERRERO, CITY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT, INC. and CDC                                               STREET                                       Index No.
REALTY, LP,                                                                                                          Motion  Seq. Nos.
                                                                                                                     004 and  005
                                                                        Plaintiffs,
-  against  -
GEORGE CARVA and FERNANDO TORRES,
Defendants.
X
BARBARA  R.  MPNICK ,  J.:
Motions  sequence  numbers                                              004  and                                     005  are  consolidated  for
disposition.
Plaintiffs  William  Guerrero,  City  Property  Management
Development, Inc. and  CDC                                              Street  Realty, LP  commenced  this
action against defendants George Carva and Fernando Torres seeking
to recover damages  for defamation  (first, second and third causes
of action), breach of privacy in violation of Civil Rights Law          50
(fourth cause  of  action)  slander                                     (fifth cause  of  action),  and
trespass and property damage  (sixth cause of action).
In addition, plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining
defendants  from conduct calculated  to  interfere with plaintiffs'
business  relationship  with  the  City  of  New  York,  tenants  and
prospective tenants, employees, vendors and others, and prohibiting
defendants from publishing or circulating any additional copies of
allegedly libelous materials  and  from otherwise interfering with




[* 3 ]
the  relationships  between  plaintiffs  and  third  parties              (seventh
cause of action) and enjoining defendants from interfering
invading   plaintiffs'   property   rights,   including   enjoining
defendants  from  publishing  libel  against  plaintiffs  and  from
trespassing upon or vandalizing their properties                          (eighth cause of
action).
Plaintiffs now move for an order granting summary judgment and
directing an inquest and assessment of damages against defendants
(motion sequence no.  004).
Defendants                                                                oppose the plaintiffs' motion and move  for
an  order  requiring  plaintiffs  to  answer  and  comply  fully  with
defendants' demands for the production of documents and a                 of
particulars  (motion sequence no.
Based  on  the papers  submitted and the oral argument held  on
the record on January 23, 2002, that portion of the motion seeking
summary judgment on  the  first, second and  third causes of action
for defamation and fifth cause
that  fliers  which  were  undisputably  distributed                      by
defendants, including a flier entitled "Warning!   and one entitled
"Danger!", contained false and defamatory statements, is denied.
It is settled "beyond dispute that expressions of opinion are
cloaked  with  the  absolute  privilege  of  speech  protected  by  the
2




[* 4 ]
First Amendment                                                             (citation omitted), and  'false or not, libelous or
not, are constitutionally protected and may not be  the subject of
private   damage   actions'                                                 (citations  omitted) .
Christie's,  279                                                            186,  188                                                         Dep't                                                  2001).   See  also,
Steinhilber v. Alphonse,  68                                                283                                                               (1986).
While many of the references to plaintiffs which are contained
in  the  fliers  are  in  the  nature  of  sarcastic  and/or  offensive
hyperbole                                                                   (including "House  Latino"        and  "Abusive  Gun  Carrying,
Republican"        , "the inescapable conclusion from
the  verbal   context   of   the   entire  message   and   all   of   the
circumstances under which  it was  delivered  is  that  the  statement
would  be  understood  by  the  ordinary
tasteless effort to lampoon                                                                                                                   for the manner  in which
                                                                            they managed certain buildings in the defendants' community.
Steinhilber  v.                                                             at                                                                294-295;  Cook  v.                                     280
897                                                                         2001).
Therefore, this Court  finds that plaintiffs' first,
third and  fifth causes of action must
That  portion  of  the motion  seeking  summary  judgment  on  the
fourth cause of action for breach of privacy in
Rights  Law                                                                 §                                                                 50  is  granted  since  there  is  no  dispute  that
defendants used plaintiff William Guerrero's photograph without his
consent  in  publications  soliciting  membership  for  defendants'
3




[* 5 ]
organization, City Property Tenants Association.
Defendants'  claim  that  their  use  of  plaintiff  Guerrero's
photograph    protected by Civil Rights Law  §  76-a is without merit
since  this                                                                not  an   "action  involving  public  petition
participation"     as defined by  §  76-a
That  portion  of  the motion  seeking  summary  judgment  on  the
sixth  cause  of  action  for  trespass  and  property  damage  is  also
granted,  as  defendants'  papers  fail  to  contradict  plaintiffs'
claims that they vandalized property belonging to plaintiffs.
The  motion  is  denied  to  the  extent  that  it  seeks  an  order
directing  an assessment of  damages for  intentional infliction of
emotional distress since said cause of action is not set forth in
the  complaint.   Moreover,  "plaintiffs'  allegations  do  not  show
atrocious conduct beyond all possible bounds of decency  (citation
omitted)                                                                   J . C .   Klein, Inc. v.                         289   79   Dep't
2001).
That  portion  of   the  plaintiffs'  motion  seeking  summary
judgment on the seventh and eighth causes of action is granted only
to  the  extent of  permanently  enjoining defendants  from harassing
the  plaintiffs,  interfering  with  plaintiffs'  property  rights,
interfering with plaintiffs' contractual relationship with the City
of   New   York,   interfering   with   the   plaintiffs'   contractual
4




[* 6 ]
relationship with tenants, employees and vendors, trespassing upon
plaintiffs’ property  and  committing  any  acts  of  vandalism  to
plaintiffs’ property.
The motion by defendants to compel discovery is denied, based
on   the   responses   to   defendants’  demands   which   have   been
incorporated into plaintiffs‘ affirmation in opposition.
Accordingly,  the  Clerk  may  enter  judgment  dismissing  the
first, second, third and fifth causes of action                          with prejudice
and without costs and disbursements.
The  fourth  and  sixth  causes  of  action  are  severed  and
continued.   Upon  service of  a  copy of  this  order with  notice of
entry, and the filing of a certificate of readiness for trial and
payment  of  the appropriate  fees, if  any, the Clerk  of  the Trial
Support  Office  shall  place  this  action  on  the  Part               12  trial
calendar for an inquest and assessment of damages on the fourth and
sixth causes of action.
This constitutes the decision and order of this Court.
Dated:
J . S . C .
5

Download 2002_30097.pdf

New York Law