Opinion
15590 Index No. 152313/20 Case No. 2021–02111
03-24-2022
Hadas HARPAZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Suanne DUNN, Defendant–Respondent, John Does, Defendants.
Kishner Miller Himes P.C., New York (Bryan W. Kishner of counsel), for appellant. Eustace Prezioso & Yapchyanyk, New York (Hillary A. Fraenkel of counsel), for respondent.
Kishner Miller Himes P.C., New York (Bryan W. Kishner of counsel), for appellant.
Eustace Prezioso & Yapchyanyk, New York (Hillary A. Fraenkel of counsel), for respondent.
Kern, J.P., Moulton, Rodriguez, Pitt, Higgitt, JJ.
Order, New York County (Shawn T. Kelly, J.), entered on or about May 19, 2021, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant, who is the president of the board of managers of a residential condominium, made alleged defamatory statements about plaintiff, the board treasurer, during a board meeting by calling for a vote to rebuke plaintiff based on reports that she was harassing condominium employees. The vote to rebuke plaintiff passed and that fact was published in the board minutes. Plaintiff was subsequently removed from her position as board treasurer.
As defendant and the attendees of the board meeting constituted a group with a common interest, the statements at issue are cloaked in common-interest privilege (see Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 437, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344 [1992] ), and the motion court correctly dismissed the action as foreclosed by defendant's qualified privilege, as plaintiff's allegations of malice on the part of defendant are conclusory (see Ferguson v. Sherman Sq. Realty Corp., 30 A.D.3d 288, 288, 817 N.Y.S.2d 272 [1st Dept. 2006] ). Despite any enmity that exists between the parties, plaintiff admits that condominium employees complained about her to the building's managing agent, and that she was instructed to cease communication with them outside her responsibilities as board treasurer. Plaintiff makes no factual allegations to support her contention that defendant knew these employees' complaints were false, or that defendant recklessly disregarded the truth, or that the statements were motivated by ill will or spite (see Suozzi v. Parente, 202 A.D.2d 94, 101, 616 N.Y.S.2d 355 [1st Dept. 1994], lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 923, 627 N.Y.S.2d 321, 650 N.E.2d 1323 [1995] ).