You are here: / / EMAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF PLAINTIFF’S PHD PROTECTED...
,

EMAIL CALLING INTO QUESTION THE LEGITIMACY OF PLAINTIFF’S PHD PROTECTED BY QUALIFIED PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the defendant’s CPLR 4401 motion to dismiss the complaint after trial in this defamation action was properly granted. The statements were deemed to be protected by qualified privilege:

The parties are members of the faculty of the School of Business at Medgar Evers College (hereinafter MEC), a college of the City University of New York (hereinafter CUNY). The plaintiff commenced this action alleging that each of the defendants sent an email defaming her to other faculty and staff within the School of Business. The content of the emails related to the quality or legitimacy of the plaintiff’s doctoral degree, and included statements that she did not have a recognized Ph.D., that her degree was not genuine, and that it was purchased from a diploma mill.  * * *

A qualified privilege extends to a communication made by one person to another upon a subject in which both have an interest … . The privilege does not apply where the plaintiff can demonstrate that the communication was not made in good faith, but was motivated solely by malice, meaning, in this context, “spite or a knowing or reckless disregard of a statement’s falsity” … . However, “[m]ere conclusory allegations, or charges based upon surmise, conjecture, and suspicion are insufficient to defeat the claim of qualified privilege” … .

Here, based on the plaintiff’s evidence, the challenged statements concerned a matter in which the defendants and the recipients of the defendants’ emails had a common interest, namely, the academic reputation and integrity of the School of Business and its faculty … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, accepting her evidence as true and affording her every favorable inference which may be properly drawn from it … , that evidence does not support a reasonable conclusion that the challenged statements were motivated solely by malice. Udeogalanya v Kiho, 2019 NY Slip Op 01251, Second Dept 2-20-19

 

You might also like
Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained
SORA Applies to Out of State Sex Offense
BECAUSE A LIBERTY INTEREST IS AT STAKE, RESPONDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE REVOCATION OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE ORDER OF COMMITMENT (SECOND DEPT).
BUS DRIVER WAS LIABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW, BUS CROSSED THE YELLOW LINE INTO PLAINTIFF’S ON-COMING LANE, NO EMERGENCY (SECOND DEPT).
ZONING BOARD DID NOT CONSIDER ALL THE STATUTORY FACTORS; DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES TO ALLOW NEW CONSTRUCTION ANNULLED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Note and Mortgage Void as Usurious
FATHER’S PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
A PARTY NEED NOT MAKE A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT TO BE ENTITLED TO A WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE REVIEW BY AN APPELLATE COURT; THE VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER NEGLIGENT, BUT FINDING THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL, WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (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

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE ABSENCE OF CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION... BANK ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUITABLE SUBROGATION (SECOND...