Simpson v. Village Voice, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simpson v. Village Voice, Inc.

58 A.D.3d 421, 870 N.Y.S.2d 302

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 A.D.3d 421 (Simpson v. Village Voice, Inc.) 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

Simpson v. Village Voice, Inc., 58 A.D.3d 421, 870 N.Y.S.2d 302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered August 16, 2007, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As to the city defendants, the complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements in CPLR 3016 (a), and further failed to allege the time and manner of and persons to whom the publication was made (Seltzer v Fields, 20 AD2d 60, 64 [1963], 14 NY2d 624 [1964]). In any event, any statements allegedly made by those defendants were protected by qualified privilege, and plaintiff failed to defeat that defense by alleging malice (see Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751-752 [1996]).

As to the Village Voice defendants, the allegedly defamatory statements were either privileged under Civil Rights Law § 74 (see Freeze Right Refrig. & A.C. Servs. v City of New York, 101 AD2d 175 [1984]) or truthful (Silverman v Clark, 35 AD3d 1, 12-13 [2006]), or constituted pure opinion (Mercado v Shustek, 309 AD2d 646 [2003]; see Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146 [1993]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32532(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered August 16, 2007, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As to the city defendants, the complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements in CPLR 3016 (a), and further failed to allege the time and manner of and persons to whom the publication was made (Seltzer v Fields, 20 AD2d 60, 64 [1963], 14 NY2d 624 [1964]). In any event, any statements allegedly made by those defendants were protected by qualified privilege, and plaintiff failed to defeat that defense by alleging malice (see Foster v Churchill, 87 NY2d 744, 751-752 [1996]).

As to the Village Voice defendants, the allegedly defamatory statements were either privileged under Civil Rights Law § 74 (see Freeze Right Refrig. & A.C. Servs. v City of New York, 101 AD2d 175 [1984]) or truthful (Silverman v Clark, 35 AD3d 1, 12-13 [2006]), or constituted pure opinion (Mercado v Shustek, 309 AD2d 646 [2003]; see Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146 [1993]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ. [See 2007 NY Slip Op 32532(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.3d 421, 870 N.Y.S.2d 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simpson-v-village-voice-inc-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack