Opinion
June 18, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Toker, J.).
Summary judgment was properly granted to defendant in this defamation action. All but one of the alleged defamatory statements in the published article are truthful. The one statement that could conceivably be construed as an attack on plaintiff's professional competence or character, to wit, "marketing people are paid to sell", is a statement of opinion, and thus not actionable ( see, e.g., Parks v. Steinbrenner, 131 A.D.2d 60; see also, Brian v. Richardson, 87 N.Y.2d 46) and, in any event, no special damage is alleged. Moreover, defendant did not act in a "grossly irresponsible manner" by publishing the information after its reporter confirmed the information from reliable sources and had it reviewed by two experienced editors ( Chapadeau v. Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 N.Y.2d 196, 199).
We reject plaintiff's arguments based on the "law of the case" due to an earlier Supreme Court order in this action. The purportedly relevant issue determined in the earlier order was not the same as the issue determined in the order now on appeal; that issue was litigated by plaintiff and other parties defendant, not defendant-respondent herein; and most importantly, this Court is not constrained by the Supreme Court's prior decision ( see, Martin v. City of Cohoes, 37 N.Y.2d 162, 165; Agee v. Ajar, 154 A.D.2d 569, 571, appeal dismissed 75 N.Y.2d 916).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Kupferman, JJ.