Zion v. NYP Holdings, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zion v. NYP Holdings, Inc.

18 A.D.3d 376, 795 N.Y.S.2d 238, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682

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

DecidedMay 26, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.3d 376 (Zion v. NYP Holdings, 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

Zion v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 376, 795 N.Y.S.2d 238, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[377]*377Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered December 20, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action alleging defamation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The alleged defamatory statement, in which defendant Mc-Manus, defendant New York Post’s editorial page editor, expressed the view that plaintiff, one of the paper’s columnists, had fabricated the premise of one of his columns, was nonactionable since it amounted to no more than an expression of opinion based on disclosed facts (see Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146, 153 [1993]). In any event, the statement, contained in a communication by McManus to plaintiff and the Post’s publisher and editor-in-chief upon a subject in which they all had an interest, i.e., plaintiffs job performance at the paper, enjoyed a qualified privilege (see Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 437 [1992]; Williams v Varig Brazilian Airlines, 169 AD2d 434, 438 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 854 [1991]). Plaintiff did not adduce evidence permitting an inference that the statement was made with either actual or common-law malice and thus failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the privilege had been abused (see Liberman, 80 NY2d at 438). There is no evidence that McManus had knowledge that the complained-of statement was false or that he acted “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 280 [1964]). Nor was there evidence that the sole motive for the statement was spite or ill will (see Liberman, 80 NY2d at 439).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ. [See 6 Misc 3d 1027(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 512890(U) (2004).]

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

[377]*377Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered December 20, 2004, which granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s cause of action alleging defamation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The alleged defamatory statement, in which defendant Mc-Manus, defendant New York Post’s editorial page editor, expressed the view that plaintiff, one of the paper’s columnists, had fabricated the premise of one of his columns, was nonactionable since it amounted to no more than an expression of opinion based on disclosed facts (see Gross v New York Times Co., 82 NY2d 146, 153 [1993]). In any event, the statement, contained in a communication by McManus to plaintiff and the Post’s publisher and editor-in-chief upon a subject in which they all had an interest, i.e., plaintiffs job performance at the paper, enjoyed a qualified privilege (see Liberman v Gelstein, 80 NY2d 429, 437 [1992]; Williams v Varig Brazilian Airlines, 169 AD2d 434, 438 [1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 854 [1991]). Plaintiff did not adduce evidence permitting an inference that the statement was made with either actual or common-law malice and thus failed to raise a triable issue as to whether the privilege had been abused (see Liberman, 80 NY2d at 438). There is no evidence that McManus had knowledge that the complained-of statement was false or that he acted “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 280 [1964]). Nor was there evidence that the sole motive for the statement was spite or ill will (see Liberman, 80 NY2d at 439).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ. [See 6 Misc 3d 1027(A), 2004 NY Slip Op 512890(U) (2004).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 376, 795 N.Y.S.2d 238, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zion-v-nyp-holdings-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack