You are here: / / DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HIS EMPLOYER, UNDER A...
,

DEFAMATION CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT AND HIS EMPLOYER, UNDER A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the defamation cause of action against defendant Polit and Polit’s employer, ADP, should not have been dismissed. Polit allegedly posted defamatory statements on defendant-restaurant’s Facebook page on behalf of Polit’s employer:

Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages arising from an allegedly defamatory statement authored by defendant David Thomas Polit and published by him to the Facebook page of plaintiff Crave L & D, LLC (Crave), a restaurant. Polit’s statement advised potential customers to stay away from the restaurant, alleging, among other things, health code violations, mistreatment of staff, and criminal activity. …

… [W]e conclude that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded the existence of respondeat superior liability through … allegations, including, among other things, that Polit visited Crave for the sole purpose of soliciting plaintiffs to enter into a payroll service agreement with ADP, that Polit represented himself as ADP’s district manager and requested Crave’s business and payroll records in order to provide Crave with a quote for ADP’s services, that the post was based on Polit’s review of those records, that ADP encouraged Polit to use social media in connection with his sales work, that Polit published the post during regular business hours, and that ADP was aware of Polit’s use of Facebook and authorized his conduct. Elizabeth Votsis & Crave L&D, LLC v ADP, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 05311,  Fourth Dept 10-2-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT WAS ARRESTED BY OFFICERS WHO BELIEVED HE WAS DEFENDANT’S BROTHER FOR WHOM THERE WERE OUTSTANDING ARREST WARRANTS; THE PEOPLE FAILED TO MEET THEIR BURDEN OF GOING FORWARD AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF THE ARREST WARRANTS (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SOUGHT ARREARAGES FOR A PORTION OF DEFENDANT’S PENSION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE IN THE NATURE OF A BREACH OF CONTRACT AND WAS LIMITED BY THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INFORMED OF THE PRESENCE OF A FOREIGN BODY IN HIS PELVIS; THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S CUSTOM OR HABIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN TITLE TO THE VACANT BUILDING AT A SHOPPING MALL UNDER THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEDURE LAW (EDPL), THE TOWN MUST SPECIFY THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WILL BE USED; THE TOWN’S FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE PUBLIC PURPOSE WAS FATAL TO THE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING (FOURTH DEPT).
Allowing the Jury to Hear About Defendant’s Prior Crimes Was Error
DEFENDANT WAS A PRIME, NOT A GENERAL, CONTRACTOR AND DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6); HOWEVER, DEFENDANT DID EXERCISE SOME CONTROL OVER WORK-SITE SAFETY AND THEREFORE MAY BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (FOURTH DEPT).
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Sellers’ Representations on the Condition Disclosure Statement Claiming No Water-Related Problems on the Property Violated Real Property Law 462, 465, Constituted Fraud, and Constituted Breach of Contract
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S LETTER REQUESTING A PLEA-BARGAIN CONFERENCE WAS NOT A WAIVER OF DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY TRIAL RIGHTS.

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

ALTHOUGH THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING... WAIVER OF APPEAL OF THE UNDERLYING PLEA DOES NOT PROHIBIT APPEAL OF THE SENTENCE...