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.
— A Arthur E. Rondeau, & Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Allan Houston, et al., Defendants–Respondents. Arthur E. Rondeau,
Plaintiff–Appellant, v. New York Knickerbockers, etc., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered April 18, 2013, to the extent it granted the motion of defendants Allan Houston and New York Knickerbockers, A Division of Madison Square Garden, L.P. (the Knicks) to dismiss the complaint bearing index No. 650198/2011 (Action One), and denied plaintiff's motions for reargument and renewal and for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, with costs, and appeal therefrom otherwise deemed appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered May 10, 2013, dismissing the complaint bearing index No. 151202/2012 (Action Two) (CPLR 5520[c] ), and, so considered, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In Action One, the court properly dismissed plaintiff's breach of contract claim, and his duplicative fraud claim, asserting that Houston failed to fulfill an alleged promise to assist plaintiff in finding professional coaching work if such an opportunity were to arise, for lack of specificity and definiteness (see Manas v. VMS Assoc., LLC, 53 AD3d 451 [1st Dept 2008]; see also Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry & Warren Corp., 74 N.Y.2d 475, 482 [1989], cert denied 498 U.S. 816 [1990] ). The court also properly determined that Houston's alleged remark to a sportswriter that plaintiff “was trying to blackmail him” was not actionable as slander, since, it was a fair characterization of plaintiff's letter, and did not convey that Houston was accusing plaintiff of a serious crime (see Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34, 39 [1st Dept 1999] ). As for his claim of tortious interference with prospective business advantage, plaintiff failed to allege any specific business relationship he was prevented from entering into by reason of the purported tortious interference or that defendants acted with the sole purpose of harming him or employed wrongful means (Schoettle v. Taylor, 282 A.D.2d 411, 412 [1st Dept 2001] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Nor was there any basis to impose vicarious liability on the Knicks for the claims against Houston.
Action Two against Houston, the Knicks and their attorneys for, inter alia, defamation, based on their characterization of plaintiff in court papers in Action One, was properly dismissed, since statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are privileged (see Pomerance v. McTiernan, 51 AD3d 526 [1st Dept 2008] ).
We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions, including that his motions in Action One for sanctions and for reargument and renewal were improperly denied, and find them unavailing.
M–2943 – Rondeau v. Houston, et al.,
Motion for costs and sanctions granted to the extent of awarding costs on the appeal, and otherwise denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 1289 7 1289 7 M–2943
Decided: June 26, 2014
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)