Ticketmaster Corp. v. Lidsky, 245 A.D.2d 142 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). · Go Syfert
Search
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Lidsky, 245 A.D.2d 142 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Schnur v. Balestriere (nyappdiv, 2022-09-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schnur v. Balestriere
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Although "unfounded" allegations are not actionable under Judiciary Law § 487, deliberate misrepresentations are ( see Amalfitano v Rosenberg , 12 NY3d 8, 11-15 [2009]; Ticketmaster Corp. v Lidsky , 245 AD2d 142, 143 [1st Dept 1997]; Redmond v Bailey , 2012 NY Slip Op 31081[U] , *6 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schnur v. Balestriere
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Although "unfounded" allegations are not actionable under Judiciary Law § 487, deliberate misrepresentations are ( see Amalfitano v Rosenberg , 12 NY3d 8, 11-15 [2009]; Ticketmaster Corp. v Lidsky , 245 AD2d 142, 143 [1st Dept 1997]; Redmond v Bailey , 2012 NY Slip Op 31081[U] , *6 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Willis Re Inc. v. Hudson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Corp., 50 NY2d 183, 191 [1980]) or that either acted for the sole purpose of harming plaintiff (see Snyder v Sony Music Entertainment, 252 AD2d 294, 299-300 [1999]; Ticketmaster Corp. v Lidsky, 245 AD2d 142, 143 [1997]).
discussed Cited "see" Avanza Group, LLC v. Golenbock Eiseman Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tickermaster Corp. v. Lidsky, 245 A.D.2d 142, 143 [1st Dept. 1997] (holding that “assertation[s] of unfounded allegations in a pleading, even if made for improper purposes, does not provide a basis for liability under Judiciary Law § 487”); see also Seldon v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, 116 A.D.3d 490, 491 [1st Dept. 2014].
discussed Cited "see" Sammy v. Haupel
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
Even if the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded this allegation, she "failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that the[ ] defendants intended to deceive the court" or the plaintiff ( Klein v Rieff , 135 AD3d 910, 912 ; see Ticketmaster Corp. v Lidsky , 245 AD2d 142, 143 ; Thomas v Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield , 115 AD2d 999, 999-1000 ).
Ticketmaster Corporation
v.
Carlos Lidsky
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 16, 1997.
245 A.D.2d 142
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about August 6, 1996, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and order, same court and Justice, entered March 26, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this tort action, the IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ causes of action for defamation on the grounds that the allegations made in the complaints in previous class actions were absolutely privileged since they were pertinent and relevant to those proceedings (see, Park Knoll Assocs. v Schmidt, 59 NY2d 205, 209) “by any view or under any circumstances” (Martirano v Frost, 25 NY2d 505, 507), and “the protection is complete, irrespective of the motive with which [the words were] used” (Marsh v Ellsworth, 50 NY 309, 311-312). Further, contrary to plaintiffs’ contentions, defendants did not disseminate or deliver copies of the complaints to the public or the media (see, Williams v Williams, 23 NY2d 592, 599; Bridge C.A.T. Scan Assocs. v Ohio-Nuclear, Inc., 608 F Supp 1187, 1195).

[*143] The motion court also properly dismissed the tenth cause of action alleging prima facie tort since the basis for such claim cannot be a lawsuit (see, Curiano v Suozzi, 63 NY2d 113, 118), the class actions were not based on “disinterested malevolence” (WFB Telecommunications v NYNEX Corp., 188 AD2d 257, 258, lv denied 81 NY2d 709), and plaintiffs failed to itemize special damages (see, Leather Dev. Corp. v Dun & Bradstreet, 15 AD2d 761, affd 12 NY2d 909). The eleventh cause of action for interference with economic relations was also properly dismissed for failure to show that defendants’ “sole motive was to inflict injury and that [defendants] employed unlawful means to do so” (Nifty Foods Corp. v Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 614 F2d 832, 838).

Finally, since the “[assertion of unfounded allegations in a pleading, even if made for improper purposes, does not provide a basis for liability under [Judiciary Law § 487]” (Thomas v Chamberlain, D'Amanda, Oppenheimer & Greenfield, 115 AD2d 999, 1000, appeal dismissed 67 NY2d 1005), Supreme Court properly dismissed the twelfth cause of action. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.