Opinion
12088 Index No. 155820/18 Case No. 2020-01773
10-15-2020
Marc LEFFLER, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Joel M. KOTICK, Defendant–Appellant.
Joel M. Kotick, New York, appellant pro se. Law Office of Richard A. Altman, New York (Richard A. Altman of counsel), for respondent.
Joel M. Kotick, New York, appellant pro se.
Law Office of Richard A. Altman, New York (Richard A. Altman of counsel), for respondent.
Friedman, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kern, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (W. Franc Perry, J.), entered September 27, 2019, which denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his defamation claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly determined that plaintiff established, prima facie, that defendant made substantially false statements, to a nonprivileged party, that plaintiff committed and suborned perjury at a trial, where the parties were opposing counsel, which constituted defamation per se (see Dillon v. City of New York, 261 A.D.2d 34, 38, 704 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 1999] ; Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 435, 590 N.Y.S.2d 857, 605 N.E.2d 344 [1992] ). Defendant's subsequent complaints to the Attorney Grievance Committee were determined to be unfounded, and this Court affirmed the directed verdict in the trial where the allegedly perjurious testimony was elicited by plaintiff ( Reid v. Rubinstein, 155 A.D.3d 448, 63 N.Y.S.3d 666 [1st Dept. 2017] ).
In denying defendant's summary judgment motion, the court properly determined that he failed to establish, prima facie, that plaintiff committed or suborned perjury, as there was no admissible evidence that plaintiff knowingly or intentionally produced witnesses to give false sworn testimony, or that this allegedly false testimony was material to the trial (see Penal Law §§ 210.10, 210.15 ).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.