Omansky v. Penning

Plaintiff asserts that defendants defamed him by stating, in front of a potential subtenant, that plaintiff had been evicted and had no right to sublet the property, which was owned by defendants and had been leased to plaintiff. The documentary evidence established, however, that, prior to the alleged statements being made, plaintiff had assigned his rights in the leasehold to Nicolena’s B and B II, Inc., a corporate entity run by plaintiff. The documentary evidence further showed that *515Nicolena’s had assigned its rights in the leasehold to an unrelated third party. Thus, it is that third…