Summary
This Appellate Division decision reviews a trial court's order granting a defendant's motion to dismiss portions of a defamation complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(7). The appellate court reversed in part, determining that the challenged statements were not shielded by litigation privilege or the fair report privilege under Civil Rights Law § 74. Accordingly, the court held that the complaint adequately stated causes of action for defamation, libel, and slander per se.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the alleged defamatory statements numbered two, three, and four are protected by the litigation privilege or Civil Rights Law § 74
- Whether the complaint sufficiently states causes of action for defamation, libel, and slander per se against Syed.
Holdings
- The statements are not protected by the litigation privilege nor by Civil Rights Law § 74; the privilege does not apply because the statements were not made in the context of litigation or as a fair and true report of an official proceeding.
- The complaint sufficiently states the required elements of defamation, libel, and slander per se, and the causes of action are viable.
Key quotations
“The elements of a cause of action for defamation are (a) a false statement that tends to expose a person to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, aversion, or disgrace, (b) published without privilege or authorization to a third party, (c) amounting to fault as judged by, at a minimum, a negligence standard, and (d) either causing special harm or constituting defamation per se.” (at)
“A statement made at any stage of a judicial proceeding in communications among the parties, witnesses, counsel, and the court, regardless of the motive with which it was made, is absolutely privileged if, by any view or under any circumstances, it may be considered pertinent to the litigation.” (at)
Factual background
S&P Pharmacy Corp., doing business as Marhaba Pharmacy in Brooklyn, employed Uwais Syed as a pharmacist. Plaintiffs sued Syed for defamation, alleging five false statements published between October 2020 and January 2022. Syed moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(7). The trial court dismissed the first three causes of action based on a claim of privilege.
Procedural history
The Supreme Court, Kings County dismissed the first, second, and third causes of action for defamation, libel, and slander per se based on alleged privilege. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal.