Panghat v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Panghat v. New York State Division of Human Rights

89 A.D.3d 597, 934 N.Y.2d 9

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

The Court of Claims properly granted the motion to dismiss the claim, which attempted to set forth a cause of action for defamation based on defendant’s publication of a judicial decision in a related matter on its website. Civil Rights Law § 74 prohibits a civil action that alleges injury from “the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding.” The privilege under that statute is absolute and applies even in the face of allegations of malice or bad faith (see Pelayo v Celle, 270 AD2d 469 [2000]), and is not altered by subsequent appeals or [598] dismissals of any action (see Glendora v Gannett Suburban Newspapers, 201 AD2d 620 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 757 [1994]).

The Court of Claims properly denied the motion for leave to amend the claim as the proposed amendments were not viable and could not overcome the privilege under Civil Rights Law §74 (see Sharon Ava & Co. v Olympic Tower Assoc., 259 AD2d 315 [1999]). The court also correctly declined to reach claimant’s motion to strike the affirmative defenses, since it was unnecessary to do so.

We have considered claimant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.R, Saxe, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The Court of Claims properly granted the motion to dismiss the claim, which attempted to set forth a cause of action for defamation based on defendant’s publication of a judicial decision in a related matter on its website. Civil Rights Law § 74 prohibits a civil action that alleges injury from “the publication of a fair and true report of any judicial proceeding.” The privilege under that statute is absolute and applies even in the face of allegations of malice or bad faith (see Pelayo v Celle, 270 AD2d 469 [2000]), and is not altered by subsequent appeals or [598] dismissals of any action (see Glendora v Gannett Suburban Newspapers, 201 AD2d 620 [1994], lv denied 83 NY2d 757 [1994]).

The Court of Claims properly denied the motion for leave to amend the claim as the proposed amendments were not viable and could not overcome the privilege under Civil Rights Law §74 (see Sharon Ava & Co. v Olympic Tower Assoc., 259 AD2d 315 [1999]). The court also correctly declined to reach claimant’s motion to strike the affirmative defenses, since it was unnecessary to do so.

We have considered claimant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.R, Saxe, Sweeny, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Panghat v. New York State Division of Human Rights, 89 A.D.3d 597, 934 N.Y.2d 9 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

89 A.D.3d 597 (Panghat v. New York State Division of Human Rights) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related