From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leser v. Penido

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 14, 2009
62 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

Opinion

No. 566.

May 14, 2009.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered July 23, 2008, which, inter alia, denied defendants' motion to dismiss the cause of action for libel per se, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Richard A. Altman, New York, for appellants.

Victoria M. Brown, New York, for respondent.

Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Nardelli, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.


Plaintiff sufficiently stated a cause of action for libel per se based upon defendants' alleged postings on the internet, attributed to plaintiff, which plaintiff asserts damaged her business of selling luxury handbags on line ( see Rail v Hellman, 284 AD2d 113). Furthermore, the pornographic pictures and statements linked to plaintiff's name and photograph on various web sites "allegedly falsely imply[] that [s]he is sexually lustful and promiscuous" ( Rejent v Liberation Pubis., 197 AD2d 240, 243; compare Bement v N.Y.P. Holdings, 307 AD2d 86, 92, lv denied 100 NY2d 510).

We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

[ See 20 Misc 3d 1127(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51645(U).]


Summaries of

Leser v. Penido

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 14, 2009
62 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
Case details for

Leser v. Penido

Case Details

Full title:JEAN WALTON LESER, Doing Business as THE LUXURY PORTAL, Respondent, v. Luz…

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

Date published: May 14, 2009

Citations

62 A.D.3d 510 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)
2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 3845
879 N.Y.S.2d 107

Citing Cases

Leser v. Penido

Plaintiff's photo and information was surrounded by multiple pornographic and sexually explicit pictures,…

In re Cohen

Finally, with respect to the third factor, in the context of the blog as a whole, the explicit use of the…