Weinstock v. Goldstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstock v. Goldstein

190 A.D.2d 847, 594 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1636

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 847 (Weinstock v. Goldstein) 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

Weinstock v. Goldstein, 190 A.D.2d 847, 594 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover damages for slander, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [848]*848Kings County (Golden, J.), dated November 20, 1990, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint because of the plaintiff’s failure to allege special damages (see, Aronson v Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592). The allegedly defamatory statements did not address the subject of the plaintiff’s ability to practice his profession and were not disparaging of his mental capacity and competence as a lawyer (cf., Van Lengen v Parr, 136 AD2d 964, 965). Instead, the words merely imputed misconduct unconnected with the plaintiff’s profession and are not defamatory per se and, therefore, not actionable without allegations of special damages (see, Nadrowski v Wazeter, 29 AD2d 741, affd 23 NY2d 899). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Ritter and Santucci, 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 slander, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, [848]*848Kings County (Golden, J.), dated November 20, 1990, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint because of the plaintiff’s failure to allege special damages (see, Aronson v Wiersma, 65 NY2d 592). The allegedly defamatory statements did not address the subject of the plaintiff’s ability to practice his profession and were not disparaging of his mental capacity and competence as a lawyer (cf., Van Lengen v Parr, 136 AD2d 964, 965). Instead, the words merely imputed misconduct unconnected with the plaintiff’s profession and are not defamatory per se and, therefore, not actionable without allegations of special damages (see, Nadrowski v Wazeter, 29 AD2d 741, affd 23 NY2d 899). Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 A.D.2d 847, 594 N.Y.S.2d 47, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstock-v-goldstein-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack