Opinion
13712-13712A Index No. 153127/18 Case No. 2020-03447 2020-04578
04-20-2021
IDEAL MEDIA U.S. INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Alexander BARON et al., Defendants–Appellants.
The Baez Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Jose Anibal Baez of counsel), for appellants. Val Mandel, P.C., New York (Eric Wertheim of counsel), for respondent.
The Baez Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Jose Anibal Baez of counsel), for appellants.
Val Mandel, P.C., New York (Eric Wertheim of counsel), for respondent.
Webber, J.P., Kern, Oing, González, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered June 18, 2020, in favor of plaintiff against defendants in the total amount of $112,117.18, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered September 20, 2019, which denied defendants' motion to strike the note of issue, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered March 6, 2020, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
The court providently denied defendants' motion to strike the note of issue. There was no outstanding discovery when plaintiff filed the note of issue and the certificate of readiness contained no material factual errors (see Pannone v. Silberstein, 40 A.D.3d 327, 328, 837 N.Y.S.2d 9 [1st Dept. 2007] ; Grant v. Wainer, 179 A.D.2d 364, 364, 577 N.Y.S.2d 839 [1st Dept. 1992] ).
Plaintiff made a prima facie showing that, after defendant Baron was properly terminated from his employment with plaintiff, he took $95,000 from plaintiff's bank account and transferred it to his bank account at defendant Retirely, without authority to do so. There is no reason to discredit the affidavit of plaintiff's representative and the other proof submitted in support of summary judgment. In opposition, defendants failed to raise any issue of fact warranting a trial (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 [1986] ). Defendants' defamation counterclaims were also properly dismissed, since the statements contained in the complaint are pertinent to this litigation and are absolutely privileged (see Flomenhaft v. Finkelstein, 127 A.D.3d 634, 637–638, 8 N.Y.S.3d 161 [1st Dept. 2015] ).
We have considered defendants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.