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.
SWEETPEA VENTURES INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Omar BELMAMOUN et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered April 4, 2023, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Omar Belmamoun's motion for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70–a(1)(a), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Relying on Civil Rights Law § 76–a(1)(d), plaintiffs contend that their lawsuit concerns a purely private matter; therefore, the court should not have awarded attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70–a(1)(a). This argument is unavailing. While Civil Rights Law § 76–a(1)(a)(1) requires a “communication ․ in connection with an issue of public interest,” subsection (2) does not require public interest and “conduct ․ in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition” suffices. “[T]he right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to petition the government” includes litigation (Matter of People v. Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 193 A.D.3d 67, 77, 142 N.Y.S.3d 36 [1st Dept. 2021], lv dismissed 37 N.Y.3d 1088, 157 N.Y.S.3d 270, 178 N.E.3d 935 [2021]). Additionally, “[m]atters of public interest ․ include judicial proceedings” (Reeves v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., ––– A.D.3d ––––, ––– N.Y.S.3d ––––, 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 04286, *7 [1st Dept., Aug. 22, 2024]).
Plaintiffs' contention that any fee award should go to nonparty Brookstone Partners Morocco, S.A. rather than Belmamoun, is unavailing. Civil Rights Law § 70–a(1)(a) states, “A defendant in an action involving public petition and participation ․ may maintain an action, claim, cross claim or counterclaim to recover ․ costs and attorney's fees.” Here, plaintiffs sued Belmamoun individually and he incurred legal fees.
Plaintiffs' claim that former defendant Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP is ineligible for a SLAPP award is not reviewable on this appeal. Plaintiffs appealed from an order that granted Belmamoun's motion to dismiss and for attorneys' fees, rather than from an order granting a motion by Golenbock for attorneys' fees.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 2677
Decided: October 03, 2024
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)