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
DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF TO SLIP AND FALL WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
SAFETY CONSULTANT DID NOT EXERCISE SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER WORKSITE TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) OR 200–CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE THE ONLY RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IS MONEY DAMAGES, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS THREE YEARS (SECOND DEPT).
IF AN UNSECURED A-FRAME LADDER MOVES CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL, PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING REQUIRED REVERSAL.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FRONTMOST DRIVER NEGLIGENTLY BROUGHT HER CAR TO A COMPLETE STOP IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE, FRONTMOST DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE ACCOMPANYING AFFIDAVIT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THEREFORE THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (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