Vodopia v. Ziff-Davis Publishing Co.

243 A.D.2d 368, 663 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10313
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 23, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 368 (Vodopia v. Ziff-Davis Publishing Co.) 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
Vodopia v. Ziff-Davis Publishing Co., 243 A.D.2d 368, 663 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10313 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 27, 1996, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by plaintiff’s brief, dismissed plaintiffs defamation cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered August 21, 1996, granting defendants summary judgment, unanimously dismissed as superseded by the appeal from the judgment.

Plaintiffs defamation cause of action, which is premised upon the contents of a letter written by opposing counsel and sent to plaintiff and directly to plaintiffs client during the course of negotiations to settle a copyright lawsuit threatened by plaintiffs client, was properly dismissed by the court on the ground that the letter was absolutely privileged (Caplan v Winslett, 218 AD2d 148, 153; see also, Lieherman v Hoffman, 239 AD2d 273). Clearly, the letter was written by defendants in an attempt to settle the claim by plaintiffs client, and its contents, which, in any event, primarily consist of non-actionable opinions, were relevant and pertinent to that claim. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

Related

Front, Inc. v. Khalil
28 N.E.3d 15 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
Officemax Inc. v. Cinotti
966 F. Supp. 2d 74 (E.D. New York, 2013)
Front, Inc. v. Khalil
103 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Sklover v. Sack
102 A.D.3d 855 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Rabiea v. Stein
69 A.D.3d 700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Sexter & Warmflash, P.C. v. Margrabe
38 A.D.3d 163 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Oesterle v. Wallace
725 N.W.2d 470 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2006)
Sodergren v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
773 A.2d 592 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
243 A.D.2d 368, 663 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vodopia-v-ziff-davis-publishing-co-nyappdiv-1997.