Cunningham v. Lewenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cunningham v. Lewenson

294 A.D.2d 327, 741 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4825

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 6, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 327 (Cunningham v. Lewenson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cunningham v. Lewenson, 294 A.D.2d 327, 741 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for libel and slander, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered August 31, 2000, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Sandra Lewenson and Jennifer Harper, and the defendant Francis Alexander, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

As the Supreme Court properly determined, because the alleged defamatory statements were communications made by one person to another upon a subject in which they both had an interest, the statements are protected by a qualified privilege (see Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751; Bopp v Institute for Forensic Psychology, 227 AD2d 363, 364; Matter of Levine v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 186 AD2d 743, 745; Kasachkoff v City of New York, 107 AD2d 130, 135). Moreover, the complaint fails to allege malice on the part of the defendants (see Lowinger v Jacques, 204 AD2d 175, 176; Kasachkoff v City of New York, supra at 135-136).

In addition, in light of the fact that the defendants were agents of Pace University, they cannot be held liable for purportedly inducing it to breach its contract with the plaintiff, particularly since they were acting within the scope of their, authority (see Kartiganer Assoc. v Town of New Windsor, 108 AD2d 898, 899). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for libel and slander, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Murphy, J.), entered August 31, 2000, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Sandra Lewenson and Jennifer Harper, and the defendant Francis Alexander, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

As the Supreme Court properly determined, because the alleged defamatory statements were communications made by one person to another upon a subject in which they both had an interest, the statements are protected by a qualified privilege (see Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751; Bopp v Institute for Forensic Psychology, 227 AD2d 363, 364; Matter of Levine v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 186 AD2d 743, 745; Kasachkoff v City of New York, 107 AD2d 130, 135). Moreover, the complaint fails to allege malice on the part of the defendants (see Lowinger v Jacques, 204 AD2d 175, 176; Kasachkoff v City of New York, supra at 135-136).

In addition, in light of the fact that the defendants were agents of Pace University, they cannot be held liable for purportedly inducing it to breach its contract with the plaintiff, particularly since they were acting within the scope of their, authority (see Kartiganer Assoc. v Town of New Windsor, 108 AD2d 898, 899). Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 327, 741 N.Y.S.2d 885, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-lewenson-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack