Wiener v. Weintraub

Decision Date14 June 1968
Citation239 N.E.2d 540,22 N.Y.2d 330,292 N.Y.S.2d 667
Parties, 239 N.E.2d 540 Ralph H. WIENER, Appellant, v. Melvin WEINTRAUB et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Ralph H. Wiener appellant, pro se.

Stephen Hochhauser, Albert A. Blinder, New York City, and Seth D. Blumenfeld for respondents.

FULD, Chief Judge.

In this action for libel, the plaintiff, a member of the New York Bar, alleges in his complaint that the defendants falsely and maliciously charged him, in a letter addressed to the Grievance Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, with dishonesty and fraud. The defendants moved, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. (a)), to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action in that the letter to the Grievance Committee was absolutely privileged. The court at Special Term granted the motion, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the resulting order and granted leave to appeal to us.

There can, of course, be no doubt that statements made by counsel and parties in the course of 'judicial proceedings' and privileged as long as such statements 'are material and pertinent to the questions involved * * * irrespective of the motive' with which they are made. (Marsh v. Ellsworth, 50 N.Y. 309, 311; Youmans v. Smith, 153 N.Y. 214, 219, 47 N.E. 265, 266; see, also, Civil Rights Law, Consol. Laws, c. 6, § 74, providing that no civil action may be maintained against any party for the publication of a fair and true report of a judicial or other official proceeding.) Petitions or complaints charging professional misconduct of an attorney which, in the past, were presented to the General Term of the Supreme Court (see Youmans v. Smith, 153 N.Y. 214, 215, 47 N.E. 265, 266, supra) are now usually filed with the Grievance Committee of a bar association. (Judiciary Law, Consol. Laws, c. 30, § 90, subd. 7; Rules of App.Div., 1st Dept., pt. 4 rule XII; Rules of App Div., 2d Dept., pt. 3, rule XII; see Matter of Branch, 178 App.Div. 585, 588--589, 165 N.Y.S. 688, 689--691; Matter of Wyte, 231 App.Div. 539, 547, 248 N.Y.S. 26, 34; Sullivan v. Crisona, 54 Misc.2d 478, 283 N.Y.S.2d 62.) And, it has been observed, a proceeding before such a committee constitutes a 'judicial proceeding.' (Doe v. Rosenberry, 2 Cir., 255 F.2d 118, 120.) In the investigation of such complaints and in the conduct of such proceedings, then, the bar association's Grievance Committee acts as a quasi-judicial body and, as such, is an arm of the Appellate Division. Quite clearly, the filing of the complaint in the present case initiated a judicial proceeding.

It follows, therefore, that the defendants' letter to the Grievance Committee was absolutely privileged. (See, e.g., Sullivan v. Grisona, 54 Misc.2d 478, 481--482, 283 N.Y.S.2d 62, 65, 66, supra; Robertson v. Industrial Ins. Co., 75 So.2d 198, 45 A.L.R.2d 1292 (Fla.); Richeson v. Kessler, 73 Idaho 548, 551, 255 P.2d 707; Cowley v. Pulsifer, 137 Mass. 392, 393; Toft v. Ketchum, 18 N.J. 280, 285, 113 A.2d 671, 52 A.L.R.2d 1208; McCurdy v. Hughes, 63 N.D. 435, 446, 248 N.W. 512, 87 A.L.R. 683; Ramstead v. Morgan, 219 Or. 383, 387, 347 P.2d 594, 77 A.L.R.2d 481; Quarles v. Traders & Gen. Ins. Co., 340 S.W.2d 545 (Tex.Civ.App.); see, also, 3 Restatement, Torts, §§ 587, 588.)

Assuredly, it is in the public interest to encourage those who have knowledge of dishonest or unethical conduct on the part of lawyers to impart that knowledge to a Grievance Committee or some other body designated for investigation. If a complainant were to be subject to a libel action by the accused attorney, the effect in many instances might well be to deter the filing of legitimate charges. We may assume that on occasion false and malicious complaints will be made. But, whatever the hardship on a particular attorney, the necessity of maintaining the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 cases
  • Bar Grp., LLC v. Bus. Intelligence Advisors, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas
    • February 22, 2017
    ...). The privilege attaches to such statements irrespective of an attorney's motive for making them (see Wiener v. Weintraub , 22 N.Y.2d 330, 331, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667, 239 N.E.2d 540 [1968] ).Texas law is similar. See, e.g., James v. Brown , 637 S.W.2d 914, 916–17 (Tex. 1982) (holding that commu......
  • O'BRIEN v. Alexander
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 29, 1995
    ...letter from an attorney to the Grievance Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330, 239 N.E.2d 540, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667 (1968); and in an information subpoena mailed to a plaintiff's employer, Mancini v. Marine Midland Bank, 185 A.D.2d ......
  • Sheindlin v. Brady
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 7, 2022
    ...such statements are material and pertinent to the questions involved’ in the proceeding." Id. (quoting Wiener v. Weintraub , 22 N.Y.2d 330, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667, 239 N.E.2d 540, 540 (1968) ); see also Aguirre v. Best Care Agency, Inc. , 961 F. Supp. 2d 427, 455–56 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ("New York has......
  • Stega v. N.Y. Downtown Hosp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 10, 2017
    ...an absolute privilege to statements in complaint letters sent to the grievance committee of a bar association (see Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667, 239 N.E.2d 540 [1968] ), in a complaint letter to a division of the State Department of Labor requesting an investigation ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2014 Contents
    • August 2, 2014
    ...9 (1st Dept. 1977), § 17:90 Weiner v. Serps Auto Wreckers, Inc., 24 N.Y.2d 845, 300 N.Y.S.2d 852 (1969), § 3:160 Weiner v. Weintraub , 22 N.Y.2d 330, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667 (1968), § 7:60 Weinstein v. Daman, 132 A.D.2d 547, 517 N.Y.S.2d 278 (2d Dept. 1987), § 13:110 Weinstein v. New York Hospital......
  • Privileges
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2020 Contents
    • August 2, 2020
    ...Statements made in the course of legal proceedings are absolutely privileged if at all pertinent to the proceedings. Weiner v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667 (1968); Youmans v. Smith, 153 N.Y. 214, 47 N.E.2d 265 (1897); Rondeau v Houston and New York Knickerbockers et al. , 118 ......
  • Privileges
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2015 Contents
    • August 2, 2015
    ...Statements made in the course of legal proceedings are absolutely privileged if at all pertinent to the proceedings. Weiner v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667 (1968); Youmans v. Smith, 153 N.Y. 214, 47 N.E.2d 265 (1897); Rondeau v Houston and New York Knickerbockers et al., 118 A......
  • Privileges
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2019 Contents
    • August 2, 2019
    ...Statements made in the course of legal proceedings are absolutely privileged if at all pertinent to the proceedings. Weiner v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330, 292 N.Y.S.2d 667 (1968); Youmans v. Smith, 153 N.Y. 214, 47 N.E.2d 265 (1897); Rondeau v Houston and New York Knickerbockers et al. , 118 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT