You are here: / / AN ATTORNEY’S REFERENCE IN AN EMAIL TO A NONPARTY AS A “WIFE...
, , ,

AN ATTORNEY’S REFERENCE IN AN EMAIL TO A NONPARTY AS A “WIFE BEATER” WAS ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED AS PERTINENT TO THE DIVORCE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a statement in an email written by an attorney in a divorce action, referring to plaintiff as a wife beater, was pertinent to the divorce action and was absolutely privileged:

The defendant Dina S. Kaplan is an attorney who represented the defendant Eric Dorfman in a divorce action (hereinafter the divorce action). Kaplan allegedly represented to the court in the divorce action, including court personnel, that the plaintiff, an attorney and a nonparty to the divorce action, was the boyfriend of Dorfman’s wife. In an email exchange between Kaplan and Herbert Adler, an attorney representing Dorfman’s wife in the divorce action, Kaplan allegedly made a defamatory statement about the plaintiff, referring to him as a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution.” In addition to Adler, the email was sent to court personnel and other attorneys. * * *

… [U]nder the extremely liberal test of pertinency, Kaplan’s statement allegedly referring to the plaintiff as a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution” was pertinent to the divorce action and, thus, is absolutely privileged. The email exchange between Kaplan and Adler was initially focused on a dispute over Dorfman’s financial ability to pay his wife maintenance and child support. The conversation turned, however, to the behavior of the parties to the divorce action while caring for their children, and Kaplan’s statement that the plaintiff is a “wife beater . . . who is in criminal prosecution” was responsive and therefore relevant to the issue of the parties’ behavior … . Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the statement was “so outrageously out of context as to permit one to conclude, from the mere fact that the statement was uttered, that it was motivated by no other desire than to defame” the plaintiff, who was not among the participants in the conversation, was not otherwise mentioned in the email exchange, and was not even directly identified in the statement … . Davidoff v Kaplan, 2023 NY Slip Op 03450, Second Dept 6-28-23

Practice Point: If a defamatory statement made by a divorce attorney is pertinent to the divorce action, the statement is absolutely privileged.

 

You might also like
PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT TERMINATION OF FATHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE PETITION RE THE CHILD’S SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER REUNITING THE CHILD WITH MOTHER WAS NOT VIABLE DUE TO NEGLECT OR ABANDONMENT (SECOND DEPT).
CALCULATONS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE WERE BASED ON UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED BUSINESS RECORDS RENDERING THE CALCULATIONS HEARSAY; THE REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S FAILURE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCE WHICH MET THE CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE REQUIRED DENIAL OF THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE AND MAILING CRITERIA REQUIRED THAT DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BE GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S SISTER CARRIED A GENE WHICH INCREASED THE CHANCE OF DEVELOPING OVARIAN CANCER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE MERE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF FELL FROM AN A-FRAME LADDER IS NOT ENOUGH TO WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF ON A LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION PROPERLY DENIED BUT DEFENDANT’S MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Local Law Purporting to Limit Term of County District Attorney Preempted by New York Constitution and State Law

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

VACATING A NOTE OF ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME AS MARKING A CASE OFF PURSUANT TO CPLR... THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT CASE SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED CLAIMANT’S...