Plonka v. Brown

Second Circuit

Plonka v. Brown

108 F. App'x 31

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedSeptember 2, 2004

DocketNo. 03-7746

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 108 F. App'x 31 (Plonka v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Plonka v. Brown, 108 F. App'x 31 (2d Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

Andreas Plonka appeals from a decision and order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.), entered on July 2, 2003, dismissing his complaint against all defendants. Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

Appellant fails to state a claim for slander against appellee Brown because he alleges neither special damages nor slander per se. See Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592, 594, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 483 N.E.2d 1138 (1985) (a statement that “does not, on its face, defame plaintiff in her trade, business or profession ... does not constitute slander per se, actionable without proof of special damages”). We affirm the dismissal of the claims against the remaining defendants for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.

[32]*32For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

Andreas Plonka appeals from a decision and order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.), entered on July 2, 2003, dismissing his complaint against all defendants. Familiarity by the parties is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

Appellant fails to state a claim for slander against appellee Brown because he alleges neither special damages nor slander per se. See Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592, 594, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 483 N.E.2d 1138 (1985) (a statement that “does not, on its face, defame plaintiff in her trade, business or profession ... does not constitute slander per se, actionable without proof of special damages”). We affirm the dismissal of the claims against the remaining defendants for substantially the reasons stated by the district court.

[32]*32For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 F. App'x 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plonka-v-brown-ca2-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack