Licitra v. Faraldo
| Decision Date | 11 May 1987 |
| Citation | 130 A.D.2d 555,515 N.Y.S.2d 289 |
| Parties | Joseph LICITRA, Appellant, v. Joseph A. FARALDO, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Shaw, Goldman, Licitra, Levine & Weinberg, P.C., Garden City (Jesse I. Levine, of counsel), for appellant.
Marvyn M. Kornberg, Kew Gardens, for respondent Joseph A. Faraldo.
Before THOMPSON, J.P., and BRACKEN, RUBIN and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for libel, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Bambrick, J.), dated September 16, 1985, which granted the defendant Faraldo's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against him, and, upon searching the record, dismissed the complaint as against all the defendants.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent Faraldo.
The alleged defamatory statements which form the basis for this action were contained in certain letters sent by the defendants to the membership of the Standard Owners Association of New York, Inc. (hereinafter SOA), during the course of a contested election campaign in which the plaintiff and the defendant Feraldo were candidates. The defendants urged the membership not to elect the plaintiff and leveled certain charges against him which the plaintiff claims were libelous.
A bona fide communication made upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has an interest or duty is protected by a qualified privilege when it is made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty (see, Stukuls v. State of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 272, 278-279, 397 N.Y.S.2d 740, 366 N.E.2d 829; Kilcoin v. Wolansky, 75 A.D.2d 1, 6, 428 N.Y.S.2d 272). Here, the communications were clearly privileged as they were sent to the SOA membership by the defendants in regard to their common interest in the upcoming election. In order to defeat this privilege the plaintiff had the burden of demonstrating that the defendants were motivated by actual malice or ill will (Stukuls v. State of New York, supra). The plaintiff failed to offer any evidentiary proof which would raise a triable issue of fact with respect to this issue and thus, the court properly granted the motion for summary judgment (see, Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfgrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 416 N.Y.S.2d 790, 390 N.E.2d 298).
Additionally, one of the challenged statements, that the plaintiff had "admittedly lied in court", was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garson v. Hendlin
...Cent. High School Dist., 138 A.D.2d 557, 526 N.Y.S.2d 139; Kantor v. Pavelchak, 134 A.D.2d 352, 520 N.Y.S.2d 830; Licitra v. Faraldo, 130 A.D.2d 555, 515 N.Y.S.2d 289; Kaplan v. MacNamara, 116 A.D.2d 626, 497 N.Y.S.2d 710, lv. denied 68 N.Y.2d 607, 506 N.Y.S.2d 1031, 498 N.E.2d 433; Schwart......
-
Love v. William Morrow and Co., Inc.
...Bingham v. Gaynor, 203 N.Y. 27, 96 N.E. 84; Jung Hee Lee Han v. State of New York, 186 A.D.2d 536, 588 N.Y.S.2d 358; Licitra v. Faraldo, 130 A.D.2d 555, 515 N.Y.S.2d 289; DeGregorio v. CBS, Inc., 123 Misc.2d 491, 473 N.Y.S.2d 922). Moreover, truth need not be established to an extreme liter......
-
Rabideau v. Albany Medical Center Hosp.
...interest of the employer (see, Loughry v. Lincoln First Bank, 67 N.Y.2d 369, 376, 502 N.Y.S.2d 965, 494 N.E.2d 70; Licitra v. Faraldo, 130 A.D.2d 555, 515 N.Y.S.2d 289; Mock v. LaGuardia Hosp.-Hip Hosp., 117 A.D.2d 721, 722, 498 N.Y.S.2d 446). The uncontroverted evidence was that Sweatman's......
-
Gay v. Carlson
...352, 520 N.Y.S.2d 830, 831 (2d Dep't 1987); a candidate for election in regard to an opposing candidate, Licitra v. Faraldo, 130 A.D.2d 555, 515 N.Y.S.2d 289, 289-90 (2d Dep't 1987); and professors in the course of tenure evaluation, Kaplan v. MacNamara, 116 A.D.2d 626, 497 N.Y.S.2d 710, 71......