Spivak v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spivak v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., Inc.

272 A.D.2d 74, 708 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4883

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

DecidedMay 4, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 74 (Spivak v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., 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

Spivak v. J. Walter Thompson U.S.A., Inc., 272 A.D.2d 74, 708 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered June 16, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, granted, in part, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for defamation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed upon evidence establishing that defendants’ CEO did not make the statements attributed to him in the offending article, and that the statements he did make at the employees-only meeting allegedly reported in the offending article are not susceptible of a defamatory meaning. Assuming in plaintiffs favor that one of defendants’ employees was the source of the misreport of the CEO’s statements in the offending article, defendants’ evidence, namely, the transcript of the CEO’s speech at the employees-only meeting, establishes that such employee would have been violating a clear directive not to talk to the press, and thus acting outside the scope of his or her employment. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered June 16, 1999, which, insofar as appealed from, granted, in part, defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs cause of action for defamation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The action was properly dismissed upon evidence establishing that defendants’ CEO did not make the statements attributed to him in the offending article, and that the statements he did make at the employees-only meeting allegedly reported in the offending article are not susceptible of a defamatory meaning. Assuming in plaintiffs favor that one of defendants’ employees was the source of the misreport of the CEO’s statements in the offending article, defendants’ evidence, namely, the transcript of the CEO’s speech at the employees-only meeting, establishes that such employee would have been violating a clear directive not to talk to the press, and thus acting outside the scope of his or her employment. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 74, 708 N.Y.S.2d 289, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spivak-v-j-walter-thompson-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2000.