You are here: / / THE FAILURE TO ALLEGE SPECIAL DAMAGES WITH PARTICULARITY REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL...
,

THE FAILURE TO ALLEGE SPECIAL DAMAGES WITH PARTICULARITY REQUIRED THE DISMISSAL OF THE PRIMA FACIE TORT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss the prima facie tort and slander causes of action should have been dismissed because the allegations of special damages were not stated with particularity:

… [I]n a cause of action to recover damages for slander, where the defamation alleged does not fall into one of the per se categories, a plaintiff suing in slander must plead special damages … . Similarly, a plaintiff seeking to recover damages for prima facie tort must allege special damages … . Here, as to both causes of action, the plaintiff’s nonspecific conclusory allegations failed to allege special damages with specific particularity … . Mable Assets, LLC v Rachmanov, 2021 NY Slip Op 01759, Second Dept 3-24-21

 

You might also like
ASSIGNMENT OF AN INTEREST IN A JUDGMENT WAS VALID EVEN THOUGH THE PARTY WHO PAID THE ASSIGNOR HAD NOT BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE ASSIGNMENT, PAYMENT MADE IN GOOD FAITH TO THE ASSIGNOR TREATED AS IF MADE TO THE ASSIGNEE (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Raised a Triable Issue of Fact Under the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur—Plaintiff Alleged a Bone Was Fractured During Surgery
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DENTIST WAS AN EMPLOYEE OR AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (THIRD DEPT).
PARTY WHO SIGNS A DOCUMENT WITHOUT READING IT IS CONCLUSIVELY BOUND BY ITS TERMS.
DOG OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF OFFERED DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, COURT HELD PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, REQUIRING DISMISSAL (SECOND DEPT).
CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING NOT DUPLICATIVE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION.
GENERAL AWARENESS OF A RECURRENT CONDITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE PARTICULAR CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE ACCIDENT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF, AN HVAC WORKER, LEANED ON A PIPE RAILING AS HE WAITED FOR AN ELEVATOR... BECAUSE PETITIONER-WIFE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE EPTL,...