El-Hennawy v. Davita, Inc.

50 A.D.3d 625, 853 N.Y.S.2d 925
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 1, 2008·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

[626]*626In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (McMahon, J.), dated December 5, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Even though a statement may otherwise be defamatory, it is protected by a qualified privilege where the communication is made to persons who have some common interest in the subject matter (see Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751 [1996]; Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 437 [1992]). Here, the defendants established, prima facie, that the allegedly defamatory statements were protected by a qualified privilege and, in opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the qualified privilege applied (see Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429 [1992]). Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

El-Hennawy v. Davita, Inc., 50 A.D.3d 625, 853 N.Y.S.2d 925 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

50 A.D.3d 625 (El-Hennawy v. Davita, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sachs v. Matano
50 Misc. 3d 420 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
Thorsen v. Sons of Norway
996 F. Supp. 2d 143 (E.D. New York, 2014)
Boehner v. Heise
734 F. Supp. 2d 389 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Thai v. Cayre Group, Ltd.
726 F. Supp. 2d 323 (S.D. New York, 2010)
Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. McNulty
669 F. Supp. 2d 405 (S.D. New York, 2009)