QI LLC, filed a lawsuit against GP, seeking damages for breach of contract and defamation, claiming that GP failed to pay for services rendered and posted a negative online review, which was characterized as defamatory.
GP responded by filing a motion to dismiss the complaint and sought attorneys' fees, costs, and punitive damages, alleging that the QI LLC’s allegations violated the anti-SLAPP law – which allows for a case to be thrown out on the grounds that the disputed subject matter involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. In response, QI LLC amended its complaint, removed the defamation claim and focused solely on the breach of contract.
The Nassau Count Supreme Court ended up denying GP’s motion to dismiss the breach of contract claim and his request for attorneys' fees, costs, and punitive damages, because the amended complaint superseded the original, and thus vitiated any anti-SLAPP statute violation.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed, and found that the amendment solely and sufficiently alleged breach of contract and that the evidence presented by GP did not disprove QI LLC’s claim. Consequently, GP’s dismissal application and his request for additional damages were thought to have been appropriately denied.
Did someone get SLAPPed bad, there?
# # #
DECISION