MATTHEW J. WADIAK, plf-res, v. POND MANAGEMENT, LLC def-ap

8784. MATTHEW J. WADIAK, plf-res, v. POND MANAGEMENT, LLC def-ap — Stillman & Friedman, P.C., New York (Scott M. Himes of counsel), for ap — Goodstadt Law Group, PLLC, Carle Place (Andrew S. Goodstadt of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 11, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants' motion, made pursuant to CPLR 3211, to dismiss plaintiff's claims for defamation and slander per se, tortious interference with prospective business advantage/relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8784. MATTHEW J. WADIAK, plf-res, v. POND MANAGEMENT, LLC def-ap — Stillman & Friedman, P.C., New York (Scott M. Himes of counsel), for ap — Goodstadt Law Group, PLLC, Carle Place (Andrew S. Goodstadt of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered June 11, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion, made pursuant to CPLR 3211, to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for defamation and slander per se, tortious interference with prospective business advantage/relations, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We reject defendants’ argument, that the IAS Court improvidently exercised its discretion, by refusing, at oral argument, to convert that branch of their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s defamation claim to a motion for summary judgment. We also decline to exercise our own discretion to so convert the motion since the record does not establish that the parties “deliberately chart[ed] a summary judgment course” (Elsky v. Hearst Corp., 232 AD2d 310 [1st Dept 1996] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nonnon v. City of New York, 9 NY3d 825, 826 [2007]; Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 320 [1st Dept 1987]). Plaintiff’s counsel’s objection at oral argument to converting defendants’ motion is a significant indiciation that the parties were not charting such a course (see Four Seasons, 127 AD2d at 321).

MATTHEW J. WADIAK, plf-res, v. POND MANAGEMENT, LLC def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal