Mercer v. Dutchess Day School

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mercer v. Dutchess Day School

8 A.D.3d 637, 778 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9150

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 637 (Mercer v. Dutchess Day School) 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

Mercer v. Dutchess Day School, 8 A.D.3d 637, 778 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dillon, J.), dated March 3, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CELÉ 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the statements allegedly made by the Head of School of the Dutchess Day School did not constitute slander per se (see Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 435-436 [1992]; Aronson v Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592, 594 [1985]; Falk v Anesthesia Assoc. of Jamaica, 228 AD2d 326, 328 [1996]; Chernick v Rothstein, 204 AD2d 508, 509 [1994]; Warlock Enters. v City Ctr. Assoc., 204 AD2d 438 [1994]; Bryant v Kinder, 204 AD2d 377, 378 [1994]). In the absence of allegations of special damages, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for slander (see Liberman v Gelstein, supra; Aronson v Wiersma, supra; Falk v Anesthesia Assoc. of Jamaica, supra; Bryant v Kinder, supra).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention.

[638]*638The defendant’s request for the imposition of a sanction is denied. Florio, J.P., Smith, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dillon, J.), dated March 3, 2003, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CELÉ 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the statements allegedly made by the Head of School of the Dutchess Day School did not constitute slander per se (see Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 435-436 [1992]; Aronson v Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592, 594 [1985]; Falk v Anesthesia Assoc. of Jamaica, 228 AD2d 326, 328 [1996]; Chernick v Rothstein, 204 AD2d 508, 509 [1994]; Warlock Enters. v City Ctr. Assoc., 204 AD2d 438 [1994]; Bryant v Kinder, 204 AD2d 377, 378 [1994]). In the absence of allegations of special damages, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for slander (see Liberman v Gelstein, supra; Aronson v Wiersma, supra; Falk v Anesthesia Assoc. of Jamaica, supra; Bryant v Kinder, supra).

In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contention.

[638]*638The defendant’s request for the imposition of a sanction is denied. Florio, J.P., Smith, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 637, 778 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mercer-v-dutchess-day-school-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack