From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cunningham v. Lewenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2002
294 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-00436

Argued April 12, 2002.

May 8, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for libel and slander, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered August 31, 2000, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Sandra Lewenson and Jennifer Harper, and the defendant Francis Alexander, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Judy Cunningham, Scarsdale, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Brody, Fabiani, Cohen, New York, N.Y. (Christopher J. Crawford of counsel), for respondents Sandra Lewenson and Jennifer Harper.

Morris, Duffy, Alonso Faley, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Pauline E. Glaser and Andrea M. Alonso of counsel), for respondent Francis Alexander.

Before: O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, MILLER, CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

As the Supreme Court properly determined, because the alleged defamatory statements were communications made by one person to another upon a subject in which they both had an interest, the statements are protected by a qualified privilege (see Foster v. Churchill, 87 N.Y.2d 744, 751; Bopp v. Institute for Forensic Psychology, 227 A.D.2d 363, 364; Matter of Levine v. Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 186 A.D.2d 743, 745; Kasachkoff v. City of New York, 107 A.D.2d 130, 135). Moreover, the complaint fails to allege malice on the part of the defendants (see Lowinger v. Jacques, 204 A.D.2d 175, 176; Kasachkoff v. City of New York, supra, at 135-136).

In addition, in light of the fact that the defendants were agents of Pace University, they cannot be held liable for purportedly inducing it to breach its contract with the plaintiff, particularly since they were acting within the scope of their authority (see Kartiganer Assoc. v. Town of New Windsor, 108 A.D.2d 898, 899). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cunningham v. Lewenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 8, 2002
294 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Cunningham v. Lewenson

Case Details

Full title:JUDY CUNNINGHAM, appellant, v. SANDRA LEWENSON, et al., respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 8, 2002

Citations

294 A.D.2d 327 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
741 N.Y.S.2d 885

Citing Cases

Techcon Contr., Inc. v. Village of Lynbrook

An agent cannot be held liable for inducing its principal to breach a contract with a third person, where the…

Quantum Maintenance Corp. v. Mercy College

Furthermore, all of the cases cited by Aramark are readily distinguishable as they involve a true…