You are here: / / THE LETTER CRITICIZING THE FORMER DEAN OF THE FASHION INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY...
,

THE LETTER CRITICIZING THE FORMER DEAN OF THE FASHION INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY WAS NOT DEFAMATORY ON ITS FACE, BUT THE COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION BY IMPLICATION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s defamation-by-implication complaint should not have been dismissed:

… [P]laintiff, the former Dean of Graduate Studies at defendant Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), was placed on leave following criticisms over culturally insensitive accessories presented in an FIT-sponsored alumni fashion show. Plaintiff alleges that a letter published by defendants contained defamatory remarks on its face, implied, or both, and impugned plaintiff’s reputation…. .

… [T]he letter implies that plaintiff was responsible for the show and failed to recognize the accessories as insensitive, even though she took no part in managing, directing, or approving the show. The complaint contains references to publications from other sources that interpret the letter as placing the blame on plaintiff and deeming her leadership inexcusable and irresponsible … . On a CPLR 3211 (a)(7) motion to dismiss, denial is warranted if taking the words used both in their ordinary meaning and in context make them susceptible to a defamatory connotation as occurs in this case … . The letter also contains statements of mixed opinion, “While a pure opinion cannot be the subject of a defamation claim, an opinion that ‘implies that it is based upon facts which justify the opinion but are unknown to those reading or hearing it, . . . is a ‘mixed opinion’ and is actionable'” … .

The letter omitted plaintiff’s nonparticipation in the production, direction, and management of the fashion show; her unawareness as to the accessories the designers planned to present; the FIT policy precluding academic deans from evaluating, censoring, or approving student and alumni work; and plaintiff’s prompt response to student concerns and her proactive approach to address those concerns; and implied that plaintiff was responsible for the show, was aware of the accessories, could approve them, and failed to respond to student concerns. Davis v Brown, 2022 NY Slip Op 07147, First Dept 12-15-22

Practice Point: Here the writing was not defamatory on its face. But the complaint stated a cause of action for defamation by implication. The letter included actionable statements of “mixed opinion” and omitted important facts which relieved plaintiff of responsibility for the claimed misconduct.

 

You might also like
THE INSURED, SPACE NEEDLE, LLC, IS LOCATED IN WASHINGTON STATE; ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY NAMED NEW YORK AS THE FORUM AND REQUIRED THE APPLICATION OF NEW YORK LAW FOR ANY LAWSUITS, THE WASHINGTON INSURANCE CODE RENDERED SUCH PROVISIONS VOID; THEREFORE THE INSURER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO AN ANTI-SUIT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).
A WAIVER OF APPEAL DOES NOT PRECLUDE A CHALLENGE TO A PROBATION CONDITION ALLOWING WARRANTLESS SEARCHES; THE CONDITION ALLOWING ALLOWING WARRANTLESS SEARCHES FOR DRUGS WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION (FIRST DEPT).
CEREMONIAL MARRIAGE SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN, CHILD ENTITLED TO SUPPORT.
OSTENSIBLE NON EMPLOYER WAS NOT A JOINT EMPLOYER SUBJECT TO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LIABILITY; CRITERIA FOR JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS EXPLAINED.
THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE EMAIL ADDRESSES OF ALL NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES PROPERLY DENIED UNDER THE CYBERSECURITY EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE ELEMENTS OF A CHARGED OFFENSE RESULTED IN THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY THE DEFENDANT WHICH PROVED THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
NEW RULE ALLOWING THE NYC CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD TO INVESTIGATE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS IS INVALID; PUBLIC VETTING PROCESS WAS NOT FOLLOWED (FIRST DEPT).
FALL THOUGH AN UNGUARDED FLOOR OPENING AT A CONSTRUCTION SITE IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ABLE TO TIE OFF HIS HARNESS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT PLAINTIFFS WERE FACING SUSPENSION OF THEIR LICENSE... THE ELECTRONIC LEGAL RESEARCH (LEXISNEXIS) CONTRACT SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY...