Threat Of Spittle No Cause of Action against Opponent Counsel

09/21/12

In Okoli v. Paul Hastings, New York State Supreme Court, 152536/2012, the issues discussed while dismissing the lawsuit are quite interesting. The case of slander and civil assault, which involves Okoli claiming he was ‘provoked' into slapping Bloom, the opponent counsel and partner of law firm Paul Hastings, had an interesting history and conclusion, relevant to counsel who often come up against such situations.

Okoli, after slapping Bloom (the opponent counsel) in the court during a contentious deposition last year, claimed that he was provoked into slapping the opponent counsel after the Paul Hastings partner had allegedly wagged his finger at him and spat on him accidentally while yelling during an employment discrimination lawsuit.

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

In the same deposition, earlier, Bloom had called Okoli “uncivilized, ignorant and incompetent” according to the now dismissed lawsuit. Paul Hastings submitted that Bloom had made such remarks in the “heat-of-the-moment” after Okoli had repeatedly told Bloom to “keep his mouth shut.”

The slapping of opponent counsel made Kings County Justice Nanc y Saitta to order all further depositions to take place at the office of Paul Hastings and be videotaped at the expense of Okoli. That order has been appealed against, and still pending. Meanwhile, Okoli sued Bloom and Paul Hastings for $1.1 million in the Manhattan Supreme Court.

On Wednesday, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Cynthia Kern ruled that the lawsuit brought by Okoli be dismissed and that Okoli could not pursue slander and civil assault claims against Allan Bloom or the law firm Paul Hastings.

• Search Legal Jobs
• Search Articles
• Employer Listing

United States

Search jobs

All in the last week in the last month in the last 3 months in the last 6 months in the last year

Search Career Advice

Select In-House Law Firms Government Recruiters Public Interest

Search Employer

The Manhattan Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had failed to substantiate that claims of assault arising out of alleged finger-wagging and spitting by opponent counsel had placed the plaintiff in “imminent apprehension of harmful contact.” The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the spitting was on purpose.

A spokesman from Paul Hastings remarked “We're pleased with Justice Kern's decision to dismiss the complaint, and gratified to contribute to U.S. caselaw precedent that the threat of spittle is not a cause of action.”

The Manhattan Supreme Court held that Bloom's statements about Okoli's behavior did not merit being considered as slander or not, as they were made during the course of a deposition.

Justice Kern wrote,” As these allegedly defamatory statements were made in the course of a deposition, which is a judicial proceeding, they are cloaked with immunity, and thus, cannot be actionable.”