From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roth v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 6, 1992
180 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

February 6, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly S. Cohen, J.).


Plaintiff was suspended as a resident in defendant Beth Israel Medical Center's anesthesiology department following a meeting of the Department's Resident Evaluation Committee at which his performance was found to be unsatisfactory and potentially dangerous to patients. Notice of this suspension was given to the Office of Professional Medical Conduct, which also received a copy of the minutes of the committee meeting regarding plaintiff's conduct. The American Board of Anesthesiology was also notified of plaintiff's suspension, but was not given the committee minutes. After a hospital hearing, plaintiff's suspension was confirmed. He brought this action for breach of contract and defamation, alleging that certain statements made about him were false and disseminated with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard for their truth.

Summary judgment dismissing the breach of contract cause of action was properly granted on the ground that the Hospital's termination of plaintiff's employment was made in good faith, based on reasonable grounds for concern regarding plaintiff's performance (Fried v. Straussman, 41 N.Y.2d 376). Concerning the cause of action for defamation, defendants were protected by a qualified privilege in communicating specific allegations regarding plaintiff's professional conduct to the Office of Professional Medical Conduct, which had a corresponding interest in the performance of the Hospital's residents (Education Law § 6527; Public Health Law §§ 2803-e, 2805-m; Murphy v Herfort, 140 A.D.2d 415, 416, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 701, rearg denied 73 N.Y.2d 872). Therefore, no action for defamation can lie against defendants absent proof of actual malice on their part (Buckley v. Litman, 57 N.Y.2d 516). Plaintiff's mere conclusory allegations that defendants acted with actual malice are insufficient to raise a question of fact, and summary judgment on the cause of action for defamation was therefore properly granted as well (Friedman v. Ergin, 110 A.D.2d 620, affd 66 N.Y.2d 645).

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Roth v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 6, 1992
180 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Roth v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Case Details

Full title:EPHRIAM ROTH, Appellant, v. BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 6, 1992

Citations

180 A.D.2d 434 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
580 N.Y.S.2d 11

Citing Cases

Schaefer v. Brookdale Univ

The defendants also established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the…

Konigsberg v. 333 E. 46th St. Apartment Corp.

Rubinstein v 242 Apt. Corp., 189 AD2d 685, 686 (1st Dept 1993) citing Matter of Levandusky v One Fifth Ave.…