Ruda v. Katz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruda v. Katz

271 A.D.2d 594, 706 N.Y.S.2d 357, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328

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

DecidedApril 17, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 594 (Ruda v. Katz) 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

Ruda v. Katz, 271 A.D.2d 594, 706 N.Y.S.2d 357, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated June 30, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the allegedly defamatory statement was qualifledly privileged in that it was communicated only to persons with a common interest in the subject matter (see, Conciatori v Longworth, 259 AD2d 459). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the statement was made with malice by the defendant Arthur H. Katz (see, Conciatori v Longworth, supra).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, 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, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), dated June 30, 1999, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that the allegedly defamatory statement was qualifledly privileged in that it was communicated only to persons with a common interest in the subject matter (see, Conciatori v Longworth, 259 AD2d 459). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the statement was made with malice by the defendant Arthur H. Katz (see, Conciatori v Longworth, supra).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 594, 706 N.Y.S.2d 357, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruda-v-katz-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack