You are here: / / Criteria Where Defendant Not Specifically Mentioned in Allegedly Defamatory...

Criteria Where Defendant Not Specifically Mentioned in Allegedly Defamatory Statement

In affirming Supreme Court’s dismissal of a defamation cause of action, the Second Department explained the plaintiff’s burden when the plaintiff is not specifically named in the allegedly defamatory statements:

While a plaintiff need not be specifically named in a publication to sustain a cause of action sounding in defamation, a plaintiff who is not specifically identified “must sustain the burden of pleading and proving that the defamatory statement referred to him or her” … .. “In determining whether a complaint states a cause of action to recover damages for defamation, the dispositive inquiry is whether a reasonable listener or reader could have concluded that the statements were conveying facts about the plaintiff”…. A court may grant a motion to dismiss a defamation cause of action if the complaint cannot support a finding that the statement refers to the plaintiff …. Indeed, the burden of pleading and proving that statements are ” of and concerning'” the plaintiff … is not a ” light one'”… . Dong v Hai, 2013 NY Slip Op 05191, 2nd Dept 7-10-13

 

You might also like
DEFENSE PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES TO WHITE JURORS NOT SUPPORTED BY RACE-NEUTRAL REASONS; THE ALLEGED ERROR IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY ON THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WAS NOT PRESERVED (SECOND DEPT).
DAY CARE CENTER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
COTENANT ACQUIRED THE OTHER COTENANT’S INTEREST BY ADVERSE POSSESSION.
HEARSAY EVIDENCE TO WHICH NO OBJECTION WAS MADE CAN BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS HIT AND RUN ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE SENTENCE FOR WEAPON-POSSESSION SHOULD BE CONCURRENT WITH THE SENTENCES FOR THE SHOOTING-RELATED CONVICTIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, IN A BRIEF TO THE APPELLATE COURT, ALERTED THE COURT TO NEW INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE CUSTODY RULING BY FAMILY COURT; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR A REOPENED HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
SERVICE ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW 307, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (SECOND DEPT). ​
RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA WARNINGS, EVIDENCE OF A PRIOR UNCHARGED CRIME WAS ADMISSIBLE TO COMPLETE THE NARRATIVE, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO INTERVIEW A PROSECUTION WITNESS WITHOUT A PROSECUTOR OR DETECTIVE PRESENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Fraudulent Conveyance Action Properly Brought by Third Party Beneficiary of Indemnity Agreement