From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ott v. Automatic Connector, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 1993
193 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Summary

holding that assessment of work performance was nonactionable opinion, court noted that "[a]n employer has the right to assess an employee's performance on the job without judicial interference"

Summary of this case from Murphy v. City of Kirkland

Opinion

May 10, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, those branches of the defendant's motion which were to dismiss the second and third causes of action are granted, those causes of action are dismissed, and the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to replead is denied.

The plaintiff's employment with the defendant company was terminated "without cause" in October, 1989. Several months later, he received a letter from the company president which informed him that the discharge was being changed to "with cause" due to the manner in which he performed certain duties. The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages, alleging, inter alia, in the second and third causes of action, that the statements in the letter were false and injurious to his reputation. Those branches of the defendant's motion which were to dismiss these causes of action sounding in defamation were denied (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). We now reverse insofar as appealed from.

The allegations in the complaint sounding in defamation failed to state a cause of action because the alleged defamatory statements were not pleaded with the specificity required by CPLR 3016 (a), and the plaintiff's papers failed to specify to whom the statements were published (see, e.g., Horowitz v Aetna Life Ins., 148 A.D.2d 584; Erlitz v Segal, Liling Erlitz, 142 A.D.2d 710; Monsanto v Electronic Data Sys. Corp., 141 A.D.2d 514). Moreover, we conclude that a defamation cause of action does not lie based on the allegations in the plaintiff's papers, as the unfavorable assessment of his work performance in the letter amounted to a nonactionable expression of opinion. An employer has the right to assess an employee's performance on the job without judicial interference (see, e.g., Miller v Richman, 184 A.D.2d 191; Williams v Varig Brazilian Airlines, 169 A.D.2d 434; Goldberg v Coldwell Banker, 159 A.D.2d 684; Noble v Creative Tech. Servs., 126 A.D.2d 611).

Although the plaintiff requested permission to replead in the event his complaint was found to be deficient, we decline to grant this relief. The plaintiff failed to disclose evidence demonstrating that he had a cause of action sounding in defamation or any other tort (see, Bardere v Zafir, 63 N.Y.2d 850; Dunn v Dunn, 162 A.D.2d 433; CPLR 3211 [e]). Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ott v. Automatic Connector, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 10, 1993
193 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

holding that assessment of work performance was nonactionable opinion, court noted that "[a]n employer has the right to assess an employee's performance on the job without judicial interference"

Summary of this case from Murphy v. City of Kirkland

noting that "the unfavorable assessment of [plaintiff's] work performance in the letter amounted to a nonactionable expression of opinion"

Summary of this case from Appel v. Schoeman Updike Kaufman Stern & Ascher L. L.P.
Case details for

Ott v. Automatic Connector, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CONRAD L. OTT, Respondent, v. AUTOMATIC CONNECTOR, INC., Appellant

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

Date published: May 10, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 657 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 10

Citing Cases

Qureshi v. St. Barnabas Hospital Center

As Defendants point out, some courts applying New York law have found that assessments of a current or former…

Messina v. Roosevelt Union Free School Dist.

(citing cases) Accord Ott v. Automatic Connector, Inc., 193 AD2d 657, 658, 598 NYS2d 10 (2d Dept. 1993). (An…