From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Papa v. Regan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 1998
256 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

December 16, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.).


Ordered that the cross appeal of the defendant Burrows and Franzblau is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Eileen Regan and Kenneth David Burrows which were to dismiss any cause of action arising out of or predicated upon any communication between the plaintiff, the defendant Eileen Regan, and their respective counsel, in an underlying matrimonial action, and substituting therefor a provision granting those motions in their entirety and thereupon dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Eileen Regan and Kenneth David Burrows; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent-appellant Kenneth David Burrows payable by the appellant-respondent.

The cross appeal of the defendant Burrows and Franzblau must be dismissed. It is not aggrieved by the order cross-appealed from since it never moved to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it or joined in the motion of any other defendant to dismiss that amended complaint ( see, CPLR 5511).

We agree with the Supreme Court that any communications between the plaintiff, the defendant Eileen Regan, and their respective counsels, in the underlying matrimonial action, were entitled to an absolute privilege and the causes of action asserted by the plaintiff arising out of or predicated upon, those communications should be dismissed insofar as asserted against the individual defendants ( see, Goldfeder v. Weiss, 250 A.D.2d 731; Zirn v. Cullom, 187 Misc. 241).

In addition, we find that the remainder of the alleged defamatory statements were also entitled to an absolute privilege ( see, Campo v. Rega, 79 A.D.2d 626; see also, Magnus v. Anpatiellos, 130 A.D.2d 719). Thus, the respective motions of the defendants Eileen Regan and Kenneth David Burrows should have been granted in their entirety.

Rosenblatt, J. P., O'Brien, Sullivan, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Papa v. Regan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 16, 1998
256 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Papa v. Regan

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS C. PAPA, Appellant-Respondent, v. EILEEN REGAN, Respondent, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 16, 1998

Citations

256 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
682 N.Y.S.2d 94

Citing Cases

Sexter v. Margrabe

In the interest of "encourag[ing] parties to litigation to communicate freely in the course of judicial…

Segall v. Sanders

Here, the challenged communications to the Supreme Court either were protected by absolute privilege, as…