GONDAL v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (2005)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered October 6, 2004, which, inter alia, granted defendants' cross motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 According to the complaint, injurious statements were made about plaintiff's performance as a teacher by the principal of the New York City public school in which he worked.   Plaintiff's claims, however, insofar as they purport to seek damages for defamation, are time-barred, since plaintiff failed to file a notice of claim within the applicable three-month statutory period (see Education Law § 3813[1] ) and never timely sought permission of the court for a filing extension (see Education Law § 3813[2-a] and [2-b] ).

 Plaintiff, in any event, alleges no cognizable claim for defamation:  the complained-of statements either were not published to third-parties (see Sieger v. Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States & Canada, Inc., 1 A.D.3d 180, 183, 767 N.Y.S.2d 78 [2003], appeal dismissed 2 N.Y.3d 758, 778 N.Y.S.2d 773, 811 N.E.2d 35 [2004], lv. denied 3 N.Y.3d 604, 784 N.Y.S.2d 7, 817 N.E.2d 825 [2004] ), were undisputedly true (see Aguinaga v. 342 E. 72nd St. Corp., 14 A.D.3d 304, 305, 787 N.Y.S.2d 283 [2005] ), or were shielded by the qualified privilege accorded communications between parties on matters in which they share a common interest, plaintiff's conclusory allegations of malice being insufficient to overcome the privilege (see Hanlin v. Sternlicht, 6 A.D.3d 334, 775 N.Y.S.2d 146 [2004] ).

Plaintiff's remaining arguments are unavailing.