Gill v. Dougherty
| Decision Date | 18 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Index 70666/17,2019–05940 |
| Citation | 188 A.D.3d 1008,136 N.Y.S.3d 383 |
| Parties | Kathleen GILL, respondent, v. Anthony D. DOUGHERTY, et al., appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Akerman LLP, New York, N.Y. (Philip Touitou, Joseph G. Silver, and Sara L. Mandelbaum of counsel), for appellants Anthony D. Dougherty and Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP.
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Bolger, Laura R. Handman, and Jeremy A. Chase of counsel), for appellants Iona College and Kathleen McElroy.
Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein, LLP, Purchase, N.Y. (Jonathan D. Kraut, Neil Torczyner, and Meredith B. Castelli of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487 and defamation, the defendants Iona College and Kathleen McElroy appeal, and the defendants Anthony D. Dougherty and Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP, separately appeal, from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gerald E. Loehr, J.), entered May 13, 2019. The order denied the separate motions of the defendants Iona College and Kathleen McElroy and the defendants Anthony D. Dougherty and Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the motion of the defendants Iona College and Kathleen McElroy and the defendants Anthony D. Dougherty and Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them is granted.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487 and defamation against Anthony D. Dougherty, Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP, Iona College (hereinafter Iona), and Kathleen McElroy. The plaintiff worked for the City of New Rochelle and previously worked as General Counsel for Iona. Dougherty worked for the law firm Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, LLP (hereinafter together the TKD defendants). McElroy worked as General Counsel for Iona (hereinafter together the Iona defendants).
The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that defamatory statements were made about her in a prior hybrid action for a declaratory judgment and proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. That prior hybrid action/proceeding was commenced against the City by Iona, which was represented in that hybrid action/proceeding by the TKD defendants, following a land use and zoning dispute.
The Iona defendants moved, and the TKD defendants separately moved, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. In an order entered May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the motions. The Iona defendants appeal and the TKD defendants appeal separately.
We disagree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the Iona defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them. The statements made with respect to the plaintiff in the prior hybrid action/proceeding were pertinent to that action/proceeding, and were therefore protected by absolute privilege (see Ifantides v. Wisniewski , 181 A.D.3d 575, 576, 117 N.Y.S.3d 591 ; Weinstock v. Sanders , 144 A.D.3d 1019, 1021, 42 N.Y.S.3d 205 ; Brady v. Gaudelli , 137 A.D.3d 951, 952, 27 N.Y.S.3d 205 ; Rabiea v. Stein , 69 A.D.3d 700, 701, 893 N.Y.S.2d 224 ). Further, the context of the complained-of statement in a campus publication was such that a reasonable reader would have concluded that he or she was reading an opinion, and not facts, about the plaintiff (see Rosner v. Amazon.com , 132 A.D.3d 835, 837, 18 N.Y.S.3d 155 ; Silverman v. Daily News, L.P. , 129 A.D.3d 1054, 1055, 11 N.Y.S.3d 674 ; Hollander v. Cayton , 145 A.D.2d 605, 605–606, 536 N.Y.S.2d 790 ). Likewise, the cause of action alleging prima facie tort failed because the plaintiff did not sufficiently plead "malicious intent or disinterested malevolence as the sole motive for the challenged conduct" of the Iona defendants, and failed to sufficiently plead special damages ( Ahmed Elkoulily, M.D., P.C. v. New York State Catholic Healthplan, Inc. , 153 A.D.3d 768, 772, 61 N.Y.S.3d 83 ; see Nachbar v. Cornwall Yacht Club , 160 A.D.3d 972, 973–974, 75 N.Y.S.3d 494 ).
Additionally, we disagree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny the TKD defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that Dougherty intended to deceive through his actions in the prior hybrid action/proceeding (see Klein v. Rieff , 135 A.D.3d 910, 912, 24 N.Y.S.3d 364 ; Seldon v. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP , 116 A.D.3d 490, 491, 984 N.Y.S.2d 23 ; see also Doscher v. Meyer , 177 A.D.3d 697, 699, 112 N.Y.S.3d 237 ). Notably, " ‘[a]ssertion of unfounded allegations in a pleading, even if made for improper purposes, does not provide a basis for liability under [ Judiciary Law § 487 ]’ " ( Ticketmaster Corp. v. Lidsky , 245 A.D.2d 142, 143, 665 N.Y.S.2d 666, quoting Thomas v. Chamberlain, D'Amanda,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. Gold
...1041, 1042–1043, 93 N.Y.S.3d 347 ). The plaintiff's submission of an affidavit of an employee of its loan servicer was not sufficient 136 N.Y.S.3d 383 to establish that the notice was sent to the defendant in the manner required by RPAPL 1304. The affiant did not aver that she had personal ......
- Finizio v. Midwest Custom Case, Inc.
-
Discovery
...§6:42.5 provides limited protection to attorneys who repeat the allegations in the complaint to the press. See, e.g., Gill v. Dougherty, 136 N.Y.S.3d 383 (2d Dep't 2020) (Most courts will dismiss a defamation suit if the alleged defamatory statements were made during an action/proceeding su......