Sheehan v. Baskin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehan v. Baskin

293 A.D.2d 412, 740 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4318

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

DecidedApril 30, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 412 (Sheehan v. Baskin) 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

Sheehan v. Baskin, 293 A.D.2d 412, 740 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about December 20, [413]*4132000, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant was specifically ordered by the court to perform an assessment and evaluation of supervised visitation between plaintiff and his daughter, and prepare a report of her findings. This being the case, the report submitted by defendant to the court was absolutely privileged and thus may not be utilized as a predicate for liability in a defamation action (see, Missick v Big V Supermarkets, 115 AD2d 808, appeal dismissed 67 NY2d 938). Accordingly, plaintiffs defamation action, premised upon statements made in defendant’s supervised visitation report, was properly dismissed. Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered on or about December 20, [413]*4132000, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant was specifically ordered by the court to perform an assessment and evaluation of supervised visitation between plaintiff and his daughter, and prepare a report of her findings. This being the case, the report submitted by defendant to the court was absolutely privileged and thus may not be utilized as a predicate for liability in a defamation action (see, Missick v Big V Supermarkets, 115 AD2d 808, appeal dismissed 67 NY2d 938). Accordingly, plaintiffs defamation action, premised upon statements made in defendant’s supervised visitation report, was properly dismissed. Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 412, 740 N.Y.S.2d 853, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehan-v-baskin-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack