Yan v. Potter

2 A.D.3d 842, 769 N.Y.S.2d 379
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2 A.D.3d 842 (Yan v. Potter) 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
Yan v. Potter, 2 A.D.3d 842, 769 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, [843]*843the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 11, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging defamation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Truth is an absolute defense to a cause of action based on defamation (see Carlton v Nassau County Police Dept., 306 AD2d 365 [2003]; Heins v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Greenport, 237 AD2d 570 [1997]; Jung Hee Lee Han v State of New York, 186 AD2d 536 [1992]). In support of his motion for summary judgment, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the alleged defamatory statements made by him regarding the plaintiff were true by submitting excerpts of the plaintiffs deposition testimony. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

In any event, the alleged defamatory statements were protected by a qualified privilege, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the statements were made with actual malice (see Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429 [1992]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or unnecessary to address in light of the foregoing. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Maun v. Edgemont at Tarrytown Condominium
2017 NY Slip Op 9120 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Schaefer v. Brookdale University Hospital & Medical Center
66 A.D.3d 985 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Ginther v. Ginther
52 A.D.3d 1250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Silverman v. Clark
35 A.D.3d 1 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 A.D.3d 842, 769 N.Y.S.2d 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yan-v-potter-nyappdiv-2003.