Jimenez v. United Federation of Teachers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jimenez v. United Federation of Teachers

239 A.D.2d 265, 657 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5286

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

DecidedMay 20, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 239 A.D.2d 265 (Jimenez v. United Federation of Teachers) 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

Jimenez v. United Federation of Teachers, 239 A.D.2d 265, 657 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 29, 1996, which, in an action by plaintiff acting public school [266]*266principal against defendant teachers’ union and, its agents for defamation and breach of the duty of fair representation, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that plaintiff, having subjected herself to the appointment process for public school principal, and in fact having temporarily acted as such during that process, was a public figure for the purpose of that process (accord, Johnson v Robbinsdale Ind. School Dist. No. 281, 827 F Supp 1439, 1443 [D Minn]), and, as such, was required but failed to allege facts sufficient to show actual malice with convincing clarity (see, Freeman v Johnston, 84 NY2d 52, 56, cert denied 513 US 1016). In any event, the offending statements that were published in defendant’s newspaper either are not susceptible to a defamatory meaning (see, Aronson v Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592, 594), or constitute nonactionable opinions (see, 600 W. 115th St. Corp. v Von Gutfeld, 80 NY2d 130, cert denied 508 US 910), or enjoy an absolute privilege under Civil Rights Law § 74 as a substantially true report of an official proceeding (see, Holy Spirit Assn. for Unification of World Christianity v New York Times Co., 49 NY2d 63, 67-68). The cause of action for breach of the duty of fair representation is barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 217 [2] [a]) as well as by the merits dismissal of that very charge by the Public Employment Relations Board. In any event, plaintiff, as an acting principal, was owed no duty of fair representation by defendant. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 29, 1996, which, in an action by plaintiff acting public school [266]*266principal against defendant teachers’ union and, its agents for defamation and breach of the duty of fair representation, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the motion court that plaintiff, having subjected herself to the appointment process for public school principal, and in fact having temporarily acted as such during that process, was a public figure for the purpose of that process (accord, Johnson v Robbinsdale Ind. School Dist. No. 281, 827 F Supp 1439, 1443 [D Minn]), and, as such, was required but failed to allege facts sufficient to show actual malice with convincing clarity (see, Freeman v Johnston, 84 NY2d 52, 56, cert denied 513 US 1016). In any event, the offending statements that were published in defendant’s newspaper either are not susceptible to a defamatory meaning (see, Aronson v Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592, 594), or constitute nonactionable opinions (see, 600 W. 115th St. Corp. v Von Gutfeld, 80 NY2d 130, cert denied 508 US 910), or enjoy an absolute privilege under Civil Rights Law § 74 as a substantially true report of an official proceeding (see, Holy Spirit Assn. for Unification of World Christianity v New York Times Co., 49 NY2d 63, 67-68). The cause of action for breach of the duty of fair representation is barred by the Statute of Limitations (CPLR 217 [2] [a]) as well as by the merits dismissal of that very charge by the Public Employment Relations Board. In any event, plaintiff, as an acting principal, was owed no duty of fair representation by defendant. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D.2d 265, 657 N.Y.S.2d 672, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-united-federation-of-teachers-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack