You are here: / / Remarks Made In the Course of Litigation Privileged

Remarks Made In the Course of Litigation Privileged

The Second Department determined that the allegedly defamatory remarks were privileged because they were made during the course of litigation:

To properly state a cause of action alleging defamation, a plaintiff must allege that, without privilege or authorization, and with fault as judged, at minimum, by a negligence standard, the defendant published to a third party a false statement … . Additionally, unless the defamatory statement fits within one of the four “per se” exceptions …, a plaintiff must allege that he or she suffered “special damages”—–“the loss of something having economic or pecuniary value” … . Where an allegedly false statement is defamatory per se, the law presumes that damages will result, so the plaintiff need not allege or prove them … . An otherwise defamatory statement may be “privileged” and therefore not actionable … . Generally, as relevant here, statements made at all stages of a judicial proceeding in communications among the parties, witnesses, counsel, and the court are accorded an absolute privilege, so long as the statements may be considered in some way “pertinent” to the issue in the proceeding … . This privilege, or “immunity” …, applies to statements made in or out of court, on or off the record, and regardless of the motive with which they were made… . El Jamal v Weil, 2014 NY Slip Op 02408, 2nd Dept 4-9-14

 

You might also like
Action Dismissed Because Letters of Administration Had Not Been Issued to Plaintiff at the Time the Action Was Commenced
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED SUPPRESSION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES; THE APPELLATE COURT IS POWERLESS TO REVIEW THAT ISSUE; THE APPELLATE COURT IS ALSO POWERLESS TO REVIEW THE SECOND GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION ARGUED BY THE PEOPLE ON APPEAL BECAUSE THAT SECOND ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BELOW IN DEFENDANT’S FAVOR; MATTER SENT BACK TO SUPREME COURT FOR REVIEW OF THE SECOND ISSUE SHOULD THE PEOPLE BE SO ADVISED (SECOND DEPT).
Lineup Was Unduly Suggestive
“General Supervision” of Work Site Did Not Trigger Liability Under Labor Law 241(6)
PLAINTIFF WAS PROVIDED WITH A LADDER WITHOUT RUBBER FEET WHICH SLID CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE OPEN MANHOLE PLAINTIFF DROVE OVER; PLAINTIFF UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO RAISE, FOR THE FIRST TIME, AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED THE AWARD OF CUSTODY TO A GRANDPARENT AND THE SHARING OF CUSTODY WITH THE PARENTS (SECOND DEPT).
TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING IS A NULLITY, THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAD DIED AND NO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATES HAD BEEN APPOINTED OR NAMED PURSUANT TO THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT OR THE CPLR (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Tax Law Amendment Allowing New York to Collect Capital Gains Tax from a Nonresident... Service of a Notice of Claim on the City Did Not Constitute the Service of ...