BRIDGERS v. WAGNER

Reset A A Font size: Print

Darrell BRIDGERS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Christofer WAGNER, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: January 25, 2011

SAXE, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, RICHTER, MANZANET-DANIELS, ROMÁN, JJ. Darrell Bridgers, New York, appellant pro se and for Franca Ferrari-Bridgers, appellant. Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered December 7, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action for defamation, slander, libel, tortious interference with business relations and with contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The defamation, libel, slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations (CPLR 215 [3] ). There is no basis to toll the limitations period. Defendant did nothing to actively mislead plaintiffs or prevent them from timely bringing this action (see O'Hara v. Bayliner, 89 N.Y.2d 636, 646 [1997], cert denied 522 U.S. 822 [1997] ). Moreover, defendant's e-mail to the board of directors of the cooperative, stating that he believed that plaintiffs had made unapproved renovations to their apartment, was not defamatory (see Ferguson v. Sherman Sq. Realty Corp., 30 AD3d 288 [2006] ), and his alleged conduct was not “extreme and outrageous,” as required to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Howell v. New York Post Co., 81 N.Y.2d 115, 121 [1993] ).

Plaintiffs' allegation that the cooperative board's minutes referring to the allegedly illegal work performed in their apartment discouraged a potential purchaser is insufficient to support their claim of tortious interference with contract or with prospective business relations (see Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413, 424-425 [1996] ).