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
ALTHOUGH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISION OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS NO LONGER OPERABLE BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS REVOKED AFTER THE CONTINGENCY PERIOD HAD ELAPSED, THE SELLER’S BAD FAITH WARRANTED RETURN OF THE DOWN PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).
FOUR MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIED TO THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS NECESSARY, PETITION TO ANNUL THAT DECISION WAS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF NURSE WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT IN DEFENDANT’S HOSPITAL; SHE WAS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF ANY NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PATIENT’S AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR IN HIS MEDICAL RECORDS (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTUALLY SHORTENED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ENFORCED.
THERE WAS NO SHOWING THAT THE ALLEGEDLY DISABLED PERSON WAS NOT COMPETENT IN 2015 WHEN THE SHORT FORM POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS EXECUTED, THEREFORE THE ATTORNEY-IN-FACT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE A SUPPLEMENTAL NEEDS TRUST FOR THE ALLEGEDLY DISABLED PERSON (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY LIMITED THE DEPOSITION QUESTIONING OF A DOCTOR IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AND PROPERLY ORDERED THAT THE DEPOSITION BE SUPERVISED BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT ON BOTH SIDES DURING A PRIOR DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT RAISE A DEFECT IN SERVICE AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE RAISED THE ISSUE SUA SPONTE AND DISMISSED THE PROCEEDING ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT). ​
Circumstances Under Which Contractor Can Be Held Liable for Slip on Snow and Ice 

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

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