Opinion
2012-02-14
Christopher BROICH, appellant, v. Nancy C. McGANN, et al., respondents.
Law Office of Steven A. Morelli, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Eric S. Tilton of counsel), for appellant. Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (Diane K. Farrell of counsel), for respondents.
Law Office of Steven A. Morelli, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Eric S. Tilton of counsel), for appellant. Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (Diane K. Farrell of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated February 8, 2011, which granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that the defendants demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by establishing that the challenged statements were entitled to a qualified “common interest” privilege ( Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 437, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344; 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; Phelan v. Huntington Tri–Vil. Little League, Inc., 57 A.D.3d 503, 504, 868 N.Y.S.2d 737; Golden v. Stiso, 279 A.D.2d 607, 608, 720 N.Y.S.2d 164; Suozzi v. Parente, 202 A.D.2d 94, 101, 616 N.Y.S.2d 355; ATN Marts v. Ireland, 195 A.D.2d 959, 600 N.Y.S.2d 590), and a conditional privilege arising from the plaintiff's status as a public figure ( see Shulman v. Hunderfund, 12 N.Y.3d 143, 147, 878 N.Y.S.2d 230, 905 N.E.2d 1159; Silsdorf v. Levine, 59 N.Y.2d 8, 16–17, 462 N.Y.S.2d 822, 449 N.E.2d 716, cert. denied 464 U.S. 831, 104 S.Ct. 109, 78 L.Ed.2d 111; Cancer Action N.Y. v. St. Lawrence County Newspapers Corp., 12 A.D.3d 880, 880–881, 784 N.Y.S.2d 727; Sands v. News Am. Publ., 237 A.D.2d 177, 655 N.Y.S.2d 18). The affirmation of the plaintiff's attorney in opposition to the motion failed to raise a triable issue of fact with regard to the requisite showing of malice necessary to defeat either privilege ( see Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d at 437–439, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344; Cosme v. Town of Islip, 63 N.Y.2d 908, 909, 483 N.Y.S.2d 205, 472 N.E.2d 1033; James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 424–425, 386 N.Y.S.2d 871, 353 N.E.2d 834; Liere v. Scully, 79 A.D.3d 821, 822, 912 N.Y.S.2d 690; Sands v. News Am. Publ., 237 A.D.2d at 177–178, 655 N.Y.S.2d 18). Similarly, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how further discovery might reveal the existence of material facts that would warrant the denial of the defendants' motion ( see Phelan v. Huntington Tri–Vil. Little League, Inc., 57 A.D.3d at 505, 868 N.Y.S.2d 737; Shover v. Instant Whip Processors, 240 A.D.2d 560, 560–561, 658 N.Y.S.2d 661; Paskiewicz v. National Assn. for Advancement of Colored People, 216 A.D.2d 550, 628 N.Y.S.2d 405). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
In view of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.