10 Cited authorities

Lacher v. Engel
33 A.D.3d 10 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) Cited 119 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that an attorney's statement in an article that his client was "poorly served by a member of [the legal] profession to whom duty came well after other aims and interests" was a fair and true report of the malpractice action filed against the client's former attorney (alteration in original)
Park Knoll Assoc. v. Schmidt
59 N.Y.2d 205 (N.Y. 1983) Cited 216 times 1 Legal Analyses
Describing New York's litigants' privilege
Sexter v. Margrabe
38 A.D.3d 163 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) Cited 109 times
Dismissing defamation claim on grounds of absolute privilege, where defendants did not argue privilege but facts making privilege applicable appear on face of record and plaintiff could not have avoided effect of privilege had it been raised
Posner v. Lewis
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1323 (N.Y. 2012) Cited 42 times
Adhering to the doctrine but declining to extend it to an individual that extorted and blackmailed an official prior to reporting him
Martirano v. Frost
25 N.Y.2d 505 (N.Y. 1969) Cited 129 times
Holding the privilege applies to statements of parties made in open court
Black v. Green Harbour Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc.
19 A.D.3d 962 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) Cited 29 times
97015. June 30, 2005. Kane, J. Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Sheridan, J.), entered July 16, 2004 in Albany County, which, inter alia, granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint. Tabner, Ryan Keniry, Albany (John W. Tabner of counsel), for appellants. Hodgson Russ L.L.P., Albany (Noreen Dewire Grimmick of counsel), for respondents. Before: Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Plaintiffs were cosponsors of the offering plan for a housing
Orenstein v. Figel
667 F. Supp. 2d 706 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Cited 11 times
Concluding that privilege applied at motion to dismiss stage because "a lack of privilege [is incorporated] into the elements of a defamation claim"
Officemax Inc. v. Cinotti
966 F. Supp. 2d 74 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) Cited 7 times
No. 12–CV–5075 (ADS)(ETB). 2013-04-29 OFFICEMAX INCORPORATED, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. Richard CINOTTI, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Steward PC, by: Sharon P. Margello, Esq., Jennifer A. Rygiel–Boyd, Esq., of Counsel, New York, NY, for OfficeMax Incorporated. Nixon Peabody LLP, by: James W. Weller, Esq., Kurt Michael Mullen, Esq., Matthew Thomas McLaughlin, Esq., of Counsel, Jericho, NY, for Richard Cinotti. SPATT Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Steward
Lieberman v. Hoffman
239 A.D.2d 273 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997) Cited 8 times
May 22, 1997 Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), The offending statements contained in defendants' letter to plaintiff, advising that defendants had been retained to represent plaintiffs former employee, that the employee had possible claims against plaintiff in addition to those she had already brought before the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and describing the allegations behind those claims, are absolutely privileged ( see, Caplan v. Winslett:, 218 A.D.2d
Kenny v. Cleary
47 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975) Cited 25 times
In Kenny v. Cleary, 47 App. Div.2d 531, 363 N.Y.S.2d 606 (1975), the defense of absolute privilege was raised as to several allegedly defamatory statements made prior to and during the course of a judicial proceeding.

Front, Inc., Plaintiff,v.Philip Khalil, et al., Defendants.--------------------------------Philip Khalil, Third-Party Appellant, v. Jeffrey A. Kimmel, et al., Third-Party Respondents.

10 Cited authorities

Finding that an attorney's statement in an article that his client was "poorly served by a member of [the legal] profession to whom duty came well after other aims and interests" was a fair and true report of the malpractice action filed against the client's former attorney (alteration in original)

Describing New York's litigants' privilege

Dismissing defamation claim on grounds of absolute privilege, where defendants did not argue privilege but facts making privilege applicable appear on face of record and plaintiff could not have avoided effect of privilege had it been raised

Adhering to the doctrine but declining to extend it to an individual that extorted and blackmailed an official prior to reporting him

Holding the privilege applies to statements of parties made in open court

Concluding that privilege applied at motion to dismiss stage because "a lack of privilege [is incorporated] into the elements of a defamation claim"

In Kenny v. Cleary, 47 App. Div.2d 531, 363 N.Y.S.2d 606 (1975), the defense of absolute privilege was raised as to several allegedly defamatory statements made prior to and during the course of a judicial proceeding.