Torts · MBE-tested
1-900-Autofax, Incorporated et al., Respondents, v. Niagara Frontier Automobile Dealers Association, Incorporated et al., Appellants
209 A.D.2d 1016619 N.Y.S.2d 994·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1994·NY
Brief incoming
Source-anchored Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
1-900-Autofax, Incorporated et al., Respondents, v Niagara Frontier Automobile Dealers Association, Incorporated et al., Appellants.
[619 NYS2d 994]
[MAJORITY]
—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court (Flaherty, J.). We add only that defendants did not rely upon the defense of qualified privilege in their motion for summary judgment and, therefore, their argument on appeal concerning that defense is not preserved for review (see, Oram v Capone, 206 AD2d 839). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Flaherty, J.—Defamation.) Present—Green, J. P., Wesley, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.