From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Torres v. Prime Realty Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 13, 2004
7 A.D.3d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

3614.

Decided May 13, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jerry Crispino, J.), entered April 10, 2003, which, in an action for defamation, denied defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Proskauer Rose LLP, New York (John Siegal of counsel), for appellants.

The Law Firm of Jerry H. Goldfeder, New York (Jerry H. Goldfeder of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams, JJ.


The complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, alleges that plaintiff, a site manager and leasing agent, was discharged by defendant real estate management company, and that two of the company's principals, also defendants, speaking at a meeting of tenants called to inquire of defendants why they discharged plaintiff, accused plaintiff of improperly crediting tenants, misappropriating petty cash, fraudulently cashing tenants' checks to her own account, and being a thief. Plaintiff also alleges that one of these same principals also told plaintiff's supervisor that plaintiff sniffs cocaine. Both publications were allegedly made without investigation or proof of any kind, and without any opportunity given plaintiff to refute. Assuming the offending statements are protected by the common interest privilege, defendants' motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied as their submissions do not eliminate any issue of fact as to whether they uttered the statements without malice ( see Herlihy v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 214 A.D.2d 250, 259-260; Berger v. Temple Beth-El, 303 A.D.2d 346, 347; cf. Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 439). Nor does it avail defendants that plaintiff does not specify exactly what words were spoken by which principal at the tenants' meeting. Plaintiff sufficiently sets forth the circumstances of the publication ( see Herlihy, 214 A.D.2d at 260-261), and the offending words need not be in quotations ( Langenbacher Co. v. Tolksdorf, 199 A.D.2d 64).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Torres v. Prime Realty Services, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 13, 2004
7 A.D.3d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Torres v. Prime Realty Services, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DAISY TORRES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PRIME REALTY SERVICES, INC., ETC.…

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

Date published: May 13, 2004

Citations

7 A.D.3d 343 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 865

Citing Cases

Stryker Sec. Grp., Inc. v. Elite Investigations Ltd.

In other words, the allegation in the complaint of defamatory words must not merely paraphrase the words…

Techcon Contr., Inc. v. Village of Lynbrook

For pleading purposes, the Court finds that the new allegations in the fourth amended complaint are adequate…