7/30/2019 King v Hludzenski Decision

1/9

Supreme CourtState of New York

JAMES .McCLUSKYJ u s t i c e

Whitney C. Gibson, Esq.Vorys, Sater, Seymour a nd Pease LAP3 East Fourth S t . , S u i t e 3500

i n c i n n a t i , OH 45202

Jonathan B. Fellows, Esq.Bond Schoeneck &King PLLCOne i n c o l n CenterSyracuse, NY 13202

Dear Counselors:

May , 2013

CHAMBERSDulles t a t e O f f i c e Building31~ Washington t . , io t a'loorWatertown, NY 36 01 -3783Telephone: 3i 5- 7$5-6453Fax: 315-266-4781

~ , ~ _ . _< ,~m o t

.$8~5%~5'p 66d 05.38~b.0.d bl # 8EII~5y tl a:0&

RE : Gary King, t a l . v s . Kathryn Hludzenski, t a l .Index No. 2012-1654' RJI No. 22-13-0064

Enclosed please i n d your copy of the Decision issued i n the above referencedm a t t e r , the o r i g i n a l of which ha s been forwarded t o the J e f f e r s o n County l e r k ' s O f f i c e f o rf i l i n g along w i t h the o r i g i n a l papers.

S i n c e r e l y ,

~ ,Barbar J . Wrig tSecretary o Hon. James . McClusky, JSC

7/30/2019 King v Hludzenski Decision

2/9

At aTermof SupremeCourt h e l d i nandf o r the CountyofJ e f f e r s o n , i nWat ertown,Nework o n the18t"ayofA p r i l 201~

RESENT:HONORABLEJAMES .McCLUSKYSupremeCourt J u s t i c eTATSOFNEWYORKUPREMECOURTCOUNTYOFJEFFERSON

ARYING,HARVEYWHITE,DONNIEMASON,ARTYM!-SON,PAULMASON,i/IARLENEaURTON,ARRELBURTON andFRANKGIAQUINTO,

P l a i n t i f f s ,

- v s -i4THRYNA.HLUDZENSKI,RICHARD .WIL E Y , SR.nd JOHNDOES-10 Defendants..

MEMORANDUMD E C ISIONANDORDER

IndexNo.2012-1654RJINO. 2-13-0064

Defendants KathrynA. Hludz enski andRichard C.Wiley S r . submittedt h i s motio. r summaryudgmentdismissingtheP l a i n t i f f s ' compl ai nt andi n favoroft h e i r counteraim.At r a l argumenttheCourt wasdv isedt h a t the matteras t p e r t a i n s t o Defendanti c h a r d C.Wiley,5 r . has b eens e t t l e d . Thisd e c i s i o n r e l a t e s t o DefendantKathrynA.ludzenskio n l y .

Theourt has cons ideredthe o l l o w i n g : the A f f i d a v i t ofJ onathan B. FellowsdatedJanuary 18,2013 i t h attachments;theA f f i d a v i t ofKathrynA. Hludz enski dated January1 4 , 2013 i t h attac hments;theA f f i d a v i t of RichardC.Wiley,S r . dated January14, 0 1 : :v i t h attachments;theMemorandum ofLaw n supportof theDefendant s'motionf o i>ummaryudgmentubmittedb yJonathanB. ellows datedJanuary18,2013; he f f i d a v i ~> f JamesW.e l l y , I I datedA p r i l 10,2013 i t h attac hments; theA f f i d a v i t of GaryKings a t e d A p r i l 10,2013 i t h attachment s;he l a i n t i f f s ' Memorandum fLaw n o p p o s i t i o n t o

7/30/2019 King v Hludzenski Decision

3/9

e f e n d a n t s ' motion f o r summaryjudgment submitted b y Joseph M. Brunner an d David B.r t s e n dated A p r i l 10, 2013 an d the Reply Memorandum submitted by Jon athan B.

e l l o w s an d Suzanne M. Messer dated A p r i l 15, 2013.

The e s s e n t i a l f a c t s are n o t i n d i s p u t e . P l a i n t i f f s are r e s i d e n t s of Cape Vincent ne f f e r s o n County. A l l of the P l a i n t i f f s are proponents of wind farm development n Can c e n t . P l a i n t i f f s Gary King an d Paul Mason have c o n t r a c t s f o r wind t u r b i n e s o n t h e i

r t y . Harvey White, Frank G i a q u i n t o , Donnie Mason an d Marty Mason havewind farm developer B r i t i s h Petroleum. At a l l r e l e v a n t times t o t h i s a c t i o n . B r i t ; s heum had an a p p l i c a t i o n fo r the development of a wind farm i n the Town f

Ms. Hludzenski i s the p r i m a r y autho r of posts o n the b l o g Pandorasboxofrocks.i f f s complain of t h r e e posts o n d e f e n d a n t ' s b l o g . The complete p o s t referenced i nraph 17 f the complaint s a t t a c h e d t o Ms. H l u d z e n s k i ' s A f f i d a v i t as E x h i b i t . Th

s t r e f e r e n c e d i n paragraph 1 8 of the complaint i s a t t a c h e d t o her A f f i d a v i t as E x h i b i t Jnd t h e p o s t referenced t o i n paragraph 1 9 of the complaint s attached t o her A f f i d a v i t as

i b i t K.

P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h r e e causes of a c t i o n based o n defamation, o n e cause of a c t i o ni n t e n t i o n a l i n f l i c t i o n of emotional d i s t r e s s an d o n e cause o f a c t i o n f o r i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h )sines r e l a t i o n s . Defendant a s s e r t s o n e counter c l a i m pursuant t o S e c t i o n 70-a of h e yew ork C i v i l Rights Law.

DISCOVERYP l a i n t i f f s c l a i m t h a t Defendants have a i l e d t o respond t o t h e i r reasonable d i s c o v E

lemands,an d as such, Defendants' motion f o r summary judgment should b e denied. Theagrees t h a t i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s a m a t t e r may not b e r i p e f o r summary judg

7/30/2019 King v Hludzenski Decision

4/9

when d i s c o v e r y i s o u t s t a n d i n g (see O r t i z v . J . P . Jack C o r p . , 286 A.D. 2d 5 7 1 ) . HoweverP l a i n t i f f s ' "claimed need f o r d i s c o v e r y w i t h o u t some v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s suggesting t h ad i s c o v e r y may e a d t o r e l e v a n t evidence i s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o a v o i d the g r a n t of s u m m a ryjudgment" ioe . P e t r o c e l l i E l e c t r i c Co. I n c . 33 .D. 3d 377,378. P l a i n t i f f s have l l e g e ct h e need t o d i s c o v e r a c t s r e l a t i n g t o t h e A ugus t 2011 p e t i t i o n , the A ugus t 2011 r e s o l u t i o r~ f the Town of Cape Vincent Board, and the community's p i n i o n s o f the P l a i n t i f f s . NonE~ f t h is i n f o r m a t i o n i s i n the o n t r o l of he Defendants. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o seek i s c o v e r y on h essue o f m a l i c e . The Court i n d s l a c k o f d i s c o v e r y does n o t p r e v e n t the Court rom r u l i n c~ n t h i s m o t i o n .

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OFEMOTIONAL DISTRESSA ause of c t i o n f o r I n t e n t i o n a l I n f l i c t i o n of Emotional D i s t r e s s p r e d i c a t e s l i a b i

n the b a s i s o f extreme and outrageous conduct, which so transcends the groundsecency as o be regarded as t r o c i o u s and i n t o l e r a b l e i n a c i v i l i z e d s o c i e t y F r e i h o f e r' e a r s t Corp.65 .Y.2d 135,143. The posts of he Defendant, when viewed i n the o n t EF a b l o g , as e f i n e d below, do n o t r i s e t o the e v e l r e q u i r e d t o s u s t a i n such a l a i m , sol a i n t i f f s ' f o u r t h cause o f a c t i o n m u s t be dismissed.

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSTo r e v a i l on a c l a i m f o r t o r t i o u s i n t e r F e r e n c e w i t h business r e l a t i o n s i n New ork

p a r t y m u s t prove (1) h a t i t ha d a business r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a t h i r d p a r t y ; (2) h a t t h eefendant knew of t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p and i n t e n t i o n a l l y i n t e r f e r e d w i t h i t ; (3) t h a t t h eefendant acted s o l e l y out of m a l i c e o r used improper o r i l l e g a l m eans h a t amounted