El-Hennawy v. Davita, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

El-Hennawy v. Davita, Inc.

50 A.D.3d 625, 853 N.Y.S.2d 925

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

DecidedApril 1, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 625 (El-Hennawy v. Davita, Inc.) 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

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

Pincite

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

[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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 625, 853 N.Y.S.2d 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/el-hennawy-v-davita-inc-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack