Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ANSONIA ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANSONIA TENANTS' COALITION, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered September 6, 1996, which granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and denied defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint and for summary judgment upon their claims for compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to CPLR 8303-a and Civil Rights Law § 70 et seq., unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The order enjoining defendants and all persons acting on their behalf or in concert with them “from interfering with plaintiff's business by approaching, accosting, initiating communications with, distributing written communications to, or otherwise disturbing visitors to the Ansonia for the purpose of discouraging sales or rentals of apartments at the Ansonia” was not an improvident exercise of discretion. We agree with the IAS court that defendants' conduct was not protected speech but merely an instrument of and incidental to wrongful conduct (see, Trojan Elec. & Mach. Co. v. Heusinger, 162 A.D.2d 859, 860, 557 N.Y.S.2d 756), calculated to injure plaintiff's business and interfere with the condominium owners' recognized interest in residential privacy (id.; see also, Lambert v. Williams, 218 A.D.2d 618, 621, 631 N.Y.S.2d 31). We note in addition that the relief was narrowly tailored to proscribe only offensive conduct directed at persons about to enter the private confines of the Ansonia.
The IAS Court also correctly concluded that plaintiff's action is not a SLAPP suit (Civil Rights Law § 76-a[1][a]; Bell v. Little, 250 A.D.2d 485, 673 N.Y.S.2d 402; Harfenes v. Sea Gate Assn., 167 Misc.2d 647, 650-651, 647 N.Y.S.2d 329), that it is not frivolous (CPLR 8303-a; see, Entertainment Partners Group, Inc. v. Davis, 198 A.D.2d 63, 603 N.Y.S.2d 439), and that the documentary evidence did not definitively dispose of the matter (see, Fischbach & Moore, Inc. v. E.W. Howell Co., 240 A.D.2d 157, 658 N.Y.S.2d 859). We have considered defendants' other contentions and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: September 24, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)