You are here: / / THE MAYOR’S STATEMENTS WERE TRUE AND DID NOT EVINCE MALICE; PLAINTIFF’S...
,

THE MAYOR’S STATEMENTS WERE TRUE AND DID NOT EVINCE MALICE; PLAINTIFF’S TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s tortious interference with contract cause of action should have been dismissed. Plaintiff, was the head of a charter school, The mayor of Rochester (Warren) criticized the school for refusing to allow the school’s first African American valedictorian to give a speech at graduation:

To establish a tortious interference cause of action, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that [the plaintiff] had a business relationship with a third party; (2) that the defendant knew of that relationship and intentionally interfered with it; (3) that the defendant acted solely out of malice or used improper or illegal means that amounted to a crime or independent tort; and (4) that the defendant’s interference caused injury to the [plaintiff’s] relationship with the third party” … . …

Plaintiff testified that he did not allow the student to speak at the graduation ceremony, and the record establishes that Warren’s statements, i.e., that “[the student’s] school did not allow him to give his valedictorian speech. For some reason, his school, in a country where freedom of speech is a constitutional right, in the city of Frederick Douglass[,] turned his moment of triumph into a time of sorrow, and pain,” that the student would “never get that moment back,” and that “[t]his is not a time to punish a child because you may not like what they say,” were substantially true … . Moreover, in her statements, Warren did not mention plaintiff by name and referred only to the conduct of the “school,” and the statements were made during Warren’s introduction of the student in the context of providing him with an opportunity to present publicly the valedictory speech that the student was not permitted to give at his graduation ceremony. On that evidence, it cannot be said that defendants “acted solely out of malice” toward plaintiff … . Munno v City of Rochester, 2021 NY Slip Op 04830, Fourth Dept 8-26-21

 

You might also like
Request for Missing-Witness Jury Instruction Should Have Been Granted—Prosecutor’s Statement that the Witness Would Exercise His Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination Not Enough to Demonstrate Witness’ Unavailability
STEP ONE OF DEFENDANT’S BATSON CHALLENGE PROPERLY REJECTED AS VAGUE AND CONCLUSORY; THERE WAS NO CONCEPCION BARRIER TO AFFIRMING THE TRIAL COURT’S STEP-ONE RULING; THE REQUEST FOR THE CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANT HOSPITAL IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; HOSPITAL DID NOT CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY REGISTERING AS A FOREIGN CORPORATION; DOCTORS DID NOT CONSENT TO JURISDICTION BY BECOMING LICENSED IN NEW YORK (FOURTH DEPT).
Supreme Court Properly Considered Documentary Evidence Re: a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7)—Limited Role of Such Evidence in this Context Clarified/Criteria for Specific Performance of a Real Estate Contract Explained
NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
WHERE A NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN FILED BUT IS SUBSEQUENTLY VACATED, THE ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL AS ABANDONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404 (FOURTH DEPT).
Uninhabited Trailer Met Definition of a “Building” Within the Meaning of the Arson Statute
TRESPASS BY PERMANENT PHYSICAL ENCROACHMENT (PLUMBING PIPES) IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANALYSIS AS TRESPASS BY THE ARTIFICIAL DIVERSION OF WATER; TRESPASS BY PERMANENT PHYSICAL ENCROACHMENT IS A CONTINUING TRESPASS UNTIL THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME PERIOD FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION OR AN EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION (FOURTH DEPT).

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

THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DEFENDANT WHICH DID NOT OWN THE AREA... THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DIRECT THAT THE SENTENCE...