Opinion
December 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The allegedly defamatory statements made by the defendant fall within the purview of the "common interest" conditional privilege. Thus, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate that the defendant made the statements with malice, i.e., that he knew the statements were false, or spoke with reckless disregard of whether they were false or not (see, Liberman v Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 437-438; New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254). Here, the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a factual question on the issue of malice and therefore summary judgment was properly granted (see, Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart Winston, 42 N.Y.2d 369, cert denied 434 U.S. 969).
In light of our determination on the preceding issues, we do not address the defendant's contention that the complaint does not satisfy the pleading and proof requirements of General Associations Law § 13. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.