2 total
The Court of Appeal clarified the initiation requirement for abuse of process claims against private complainants and upheld damages for nuisance and defamation arising from a bitter commercial rivalry.
This decision addresses consolidated appeals and cross-appeals arising from a protracted "turf war" between two competing cash-for-gold businesses, operated by Harold Gerstel and Samuel Jacob Berkovits (Jack).
The litigation involved three main actions: the "Murder for Hire Action" (malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress), the "Interference Action" (nuisance, intentional interference with economic relations), and the "Town Crier Action" (defamation).
The trial judge found Jack liable for abuse of process to Maria Konstan (Harold's employee), Harold liable to Jack for nuisance and intentional interference, and Harold liable to Jack for defamation.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal granted Jack's appeal, setting aside the finding that he was liable to Maria for abuse of process, by clarifying the stringent "initiation" requirement for private complainants in such torts.
All other appeals and cross-appeals, including Harold's challenges to liability and damages for nuisance/interference, and Jack's cross-appeal for aggravated/punitive defamation damages, were dismissed.
Matrimonial home ordered sold pre-trial; interim support increased based on three-year average of business income.
The applicant brought a motion to sever the divorce from corollary issues and for the sale of the matrimonial home.
The respondent brought a cross-motion for increased interim child and spousal support.
The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding no compelling reasons to preclude it, and severed the divorce.
The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the applicant to pay $5,300 in monthly child support and $14,000 in monthly spousal support based on a three-year average of his business income.
