Ackerman v. Bechhoefer
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: In an earlier appeal, we affirmed an order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment (McMichaels v Bechhoefer, 214 AD2d 950). We agreed with Supreme Court that defendant’s July 17, 1993 letter to the United States Drug Enforcement Agency is afforded a qualified privilege (see, Toker v Pollack, 44 NY2d 211, 220; Chapo v Premier Liq. Corp., 259 AD2d 1050). The court allowed plaintiffs discovery on the issue whether the qualified privilege is “dissolved” on the basis…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Liberman v. GelsteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Stukuls v. State of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Prozeralik v. Capital Cities Communications, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
- Freeman v. JohnstonNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Chapo v. Premier Liquor Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Morsette v. "The Final Call"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Carroll v. TrumpDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2024
- Carroll v. TrumpDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2024
- Carroll v. TrumpCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2025
- LaBarge v. HolmesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.