Moreira-Brown v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moreira-Brown v. City of New York

71 A.D.3d 530, 896 N.Y.S.2d 353

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

DecidedMarch 18, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 530 (Moreira-Brown v. City of New York) 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

Moreira-Brown v. City of New York, 71 A.D.3d 530, 896 N.Y.S.2d 353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered July 21, 2008, which granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint and denied as moot plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the cross motion denied, the motion granted, the complaint reinstated, and the action remanded for further proceedings.

In this action for defamation and emotional distress, the verified complaint alleges that on or about September 12, 1998, defendant Police Detective Raymond Rivera, acting as agent for his codefendants, made written and verbal defamatory statements that plaintiff “had committed rape and sexual assault and was being sought by the police for arrest and prosecution [for] rape and sexual assault.” These words were not demarcated as a quotation in the complaint. Dismissing the complaint, the motion court held that plaintiff had not complied with CPLR 3016 (a) because the complaint “does not set forth the particular words alleged to be defamatory.”

While a complaint alleging defamation must allege the particular spoken or published words on which the claim is based, the words need not be set in quotation marks (see John Langenbacher Co. v Tolksdorf, 199 AD2d 64 [1993]). When construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the complaint alleges that Detective Rivera specifically stated that plaintiff “had committed rape and sexual assault,” and “was being sought by the police for arrest and prosecution” for those crimes. This allegation is sufficient to meet the requirements of CPLR 3016 (a). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Larry S. Schachner, J.), entered July 21, 2008, which granted defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the complaint and denied as moot plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the calendar, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the cross motion denied, the motion granted, the complaint reinstated, and the action remanded for further proceedings.

In this action for defamation and emotional distress, the verified complaint alleges that on or about September 12, 1998, defendant Police Detective Raymond Rivera, acting as agent for his codefendants, made written and verbal defamatory statements that plaintiff “had committed rape and sexual assault and was being sought by the police for arrest and prosecution [for] rape and sexual assault.” These words were not demarcated as a quotation in the complaint. Dismissing the complaint, the motion court held that plaintiff had not complied with CPLR 3016 (a) because the complaint “does not set forth the particular words alleged to be defamatory.”

While a complaint alleging defamation must allege the particular spoken or published words on which the claim is based, the words need not be set in quotation marks (see John Langenbacher Co. v Tolksdorf, 199 AD2d 64 [1993]). When construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the complaint alleges that Detective Rivera specifically stated that plaintiff “had committed rape and sexual assault,” and “was being sought by the police for arrest and prosecution” for those crimes. This allegation is sufficient to meet the requirements of CPLR 3016 (a). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 530, 896 N.Y.S.2d 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moreira-brown-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack