Pappalardo v. Westchester Rockland Newspapers

• Decision Date: 14 May 1984
• Citation: 101 A.D.2d 830,475 N.Y.S.2d 487
• Parties: Peter S. PAPPALARDO, M.D., Respondent, v. WESTCHESTER ROCKLAND NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 487

475 N.Y.S.2d 487

101 A.D.2d 830

Peter S. PAPPALARDO, M.D., Respondent, v. WESTCHESTER ROCKLAND NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

May 14, 1984.

McCarthy, Fingar, Donovan, Drazen & Smith, White Plains (Henry J. Smith, White Plains, and Robert M. Redis, of counsel), for appellants.

Louis A. Tirelli, Spring Valley (Maureen McNamara, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and TITONE, LAZER and RUBIN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a libel action, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated December 8, 1982, as denied their motion to dismiss the complaint.

Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In his complaint, Dr. Pappalardo alleged that an 11,700-word article entitled "Bad Machine, Is There a Remedy" which appeared in the Journal-News of Rockland County, defamed his professional competence. Although the complaint otherwise is rather sparse, it does contain the article as an exhibit. Defendants' motion to dismiss was grounded on the claim that the complaint did not allege "the specific words complained of" (see CPLR 3016, subd. [a] ) and that special damages were not pleaded. The appeal is from Special Term's denial of the motion.

The reason for the requirement of specific pleading in defamation cases is to give adequate notice to the defendant as to the occurrence constituting the wrong and to discourage the institution of vexatious actions (see Foley v. D'Agostino, 21 A.D.2d 60, 248 N.Y.S.2d 121; 3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac, par 3016.01). This requirement may be satisfied by inclusion of the purported libelous words directly in the complaint or by incorporation (Seltzer v. Fields, 20 AD2d 60, 244 N.Y.S.2d 792, affd. 14 N.Y.2d 624, 249 N.Y.S.2d 174, 198 N.E.2d 368; Liffman v. Booke, 59 A.D.2d 687, 398 N.Y.S.2d 674). Since writings annexed to the complaint are deemed part of the pleading (CPLR 3024), in many cases the annexation of the article referred to as libelous has satisfied the specificity mandate (see, e.g., Hogan v. Herald Co., 84 A.D.2d 470, 446 N.Y.S.2d 836; Cogan Mgt. Co. v. Lipset, 79 A.D.2d 918, 434 N.Y.S.2d 417; Ostrer v. Reader's Digest Assn., 48 A.D.2d 856, 368 N.Y.S.2d 575; Cabin v. Community Newspapers, Inc., 50 Misc.2d 574, 270 N.Y.S.2d 913, affd. 27 A.D.2d 543, 275 N.Y.S.2d 396). In The Law of Libel and Slander in the State of New York (par 389) Seelman notes that it is proper to set forth in the complaint the entire article containing the libel, and although specific portions should be alleged where a lengthy article is involved, if the entire article gives the impression of libel it is unnecessary to designate the specific part. In such a case, omission of greater detail is usually curable by a bill of particulars (see, also, Siegel, NY Practice, § 216). However, if perusal of a lengthy article does not reveal the libelous...