From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pappalardo v. Meisel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 15, 1985
112 A.D.2d 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

July 15, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Buell, J.).


Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and defendant's motion for summary judgment granted in its entirety.

An examination of plaintiff's affidavit in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment indicates that plaintiff has not raised any triable issues of fact. Since defendant made the alleged defamatory statement evaluating the qualifications, fitness and practices of plaintiff, as a physician, to the medical executive committee of the hospital, a qualified privilege attaches to that communication ( see, Education Law § 6527). Malice destroys a qualified privilege; however, plaintiff offers only conclusory allegations that defendant wants to "drive him out of business", without offering any evidentiary facts to support this allegation. Suspicion, surmise and accusation are not enough to defeat a motion for summary judgment ( see, Shapiro v. Health Ins. Plan, 7 N.Y.2d 56). Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Pappalardo v. Meisel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 15, 1985
112 A.D.2d 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Pappalardo v. Meisel

Case Details

Full title:PETER S. PAPPALARDO, Respondent, v. JEROME MEISEL, Appellant

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

Date published: Jul 15, 1985

Citations

112 A.D.2d 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Vilien v. Department of Education of City of N.Y

Plaintiffs' offering amounts to little more than speculation as to what might have been said or understood by…

Timashpolsky v. State University of N.Y

However, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the individual defendant physicians…