You are here: / / E-MAILS CONSTITUTED NONACTIONABLE OPINION AND POSTED FLYERS PROTECTED BY...

E-MAILS CONSTITUTED NONACTIONABLE OPINION AND POSTED FLYERS PROTECTED BY COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the defendant residential cooperative members and board were entitled to summary judgment in this defamation action. E-mails concerning plaintiff’s behavior and performance on the board were nonactionable expressions of opinion. A flyer indicating which shareholders were alleged to be in arrears was protected by the “common interest” qualified privilege:

“Expressions of an opinion, false or not, libelous or not, are constitutionally protected and may not be the subject of private damage actions'” … . “The issue of distinguishing between actionable fact and non-actionable opinion is a question of law for the court” … . Here, the statements contained in the two emails alleged to be defamatory amounted to subjective characterizations of the plaintiff’s behavior and an evaluation of her performance as a member of the Board, and thus constituted non-actionable expressions of opinion … . Accordingly, the email statements cannot serve as a basis for the imposition of liability.

The defendants further demonstrated that the challenged statements set forth in the “Shareholders In Arrears” flyers posted in the building lobby, which listed the apartment numbers of shareholders who allegedly owed arrears and the amount of those arrears, were protected by the qualified common-interest privilege … . Although a qualified privilege may be lost by proof that the defendant acted out of malice …, in opposition to the defendants’ motion, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the challenged statements in the flyers were motivated solely by malice … . Galanova v Safir, 2016 NY Slip Op 02617, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

DEFAMATION (E-MAILS CONSTITUTED NONACTIONABLE OPINION AND POSTED FLYERS PROTECTED BY COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE)/PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, POSTED FLYERS PROTECTED BY COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE)/COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE (DEFAMATION, POSTED FLYERS PROTECTED BY COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE)

You might also like
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNIFICATION EXPLAINED, PERSONAL TORT LIABILITY OF CORPORATE OFFICERS NOTED.
PETITIONER, A LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER UNDER POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, CAN BE PLACED IN RESIDENTIAL CORRECTIONS FACILITIES PENDING THE AVAILABILITY OF COMMUNITY HOUSING THAT IS MORE THAN 1000 FEET FROM A SCHOOL (SECOND DEPT).
A COMPRESSOR ROLLING OFF A PALLET JACK ONTO PLAINTIFF’S ANKLE WAS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED ACCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1), REGULATION-VIOLATION RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN OPPOSITION PAPERS PROPERLY CONSIDERED, CRITERIA FOR LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLAINED IN SOME DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINITFF’S AGENTS WHO MAILED THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WERE NOT IDENTIFIED IN PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING; ALSO, THE AFFIDAVIT PROVIDED NO FOUNDATION FOR SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS FROM A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AND WRONGFUL DEATH ACTIONS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A CRACKED WINDOW PANE BROKE AND FELL, INJURING HER HAND; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST 33 INSTANCES WHERE A WINDOW IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR (A RECURRING DANGEROUS CONDITION), RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO INSPECT THE WINDOWS (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS SCHOOL PLAYGROUND ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PETITIONER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SCHOOL HAD TIMELY ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE POTENTIAL NEGLIGENT-SUPERVISION CLAIM AND PETITIONER DID NOT OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER KNEW WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED AND WORKED AND MADE SEVERAL UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT AT HOME; WITHOUT MAKING ANY ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANT AT WORK, THE PROCESS SERVER RESORTED TO “NAIL AND MAIL;” THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT DEMONTRATE “DUE DILIGENCE;” THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (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

ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH... SAME-SEX SPOUSE OF BIOLOGICAL MOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION WITH CHILDREN...