From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lipman v. Ionescu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 2008
49 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 3167.

March 27, 2008.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward H. Lehner, J.), entered July 24, 2007, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, deemed an appeal from judgment (CPLR 5501 [c]), same court and Justice, entered September 20, 2007; said judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied and the complaint reinstated.

Rottenberg Lipman Rich, P.C., New York (Harry W. Lipman of counsel), for appellant.

Kelly, Rode Kelly, LLP, Mineola (George J. Wilson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Friedman, J.P., Gonzalez, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.


The motion court erred when it viewed defendant's statements as merely an unfavorable assessment of plaintiffs work performance. In the context of informing parents of two and three year olds that the children's teacher has been terminated, defendant's statements were reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning and slanderous per se because they directly implied that plaintiff had done something so egregious that it made her unfit to practice her profession even one more day ( see People v Grasso, 21 AD3d 851; Chiavarelli v Williams, 256 AD2d 111).


Summaries of

Lipman v. Ionescu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 2008
49 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Lipman v. Ionescu

Case Details

Full title:AMY LIPMAN, Appellant, v. GAIL IONESCU, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 27, 2008

Citations

49 A.D.3d 458 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2745
860 N.Y.S.2d 11

Citing Cases

Shirazi v. N.Y. Univ.

EDBS was an entirely separate governmental or quasi-governmental agency, with its own interests in Tisch…