LIPMAN v. IONESCU (2008)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Amy LIPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gail IONESCU, Defendant-Respondent.

Decided: March 27, 2008

FRIEDMAN, J.P., GONZALEZ, McGUIRE, MOSKOWITZ, JJ.

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.

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.

The motion court erred when it viewed defendant's statements as merely an unfavorable assessment of plaintiff's 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 A.D.3d 851, 801 N.Y.S.2d 584 [2005]; Chiavarelli v. Williams, 256 A.D.2d 111, 681 N.Y.S.2d 276 [1998] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network