Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
James SOLOMON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John LARIVEY and Jennifer Propis, Defendants-Respondents. (Appeal No. 1.)
James Solomon, the plaintiff in appeal No. 1 and a defendant in appeal No. 2, pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20 [2] ), arising out of an incident involving the 15-year-old daughter of the plaintiff in appeal No. 2 (plaintiff). Solomon asserted a “first counterclaim” against plaintiff and her daughter in which he alleged that they each wrote a defamatory letter to Town Court in an effort to influence his sentence. Solomon also commenced an action alleging that the defendants in appeal No. 1, the stepfather of plaintiff's daughter and one of plaintiff's friends, also wrote defamatory letters to Town Court in an effort to influence defendant's sentence. In appeal No. 1, Solomon appeals from an order granting the motion of the stepfather seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him and that part of the motion of plaintiff's friend seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against her and, in appeal No. 2, Solomon appeals from an order granting plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing “the counterclaim.”
With respect to Solomon's complaint and counterclaim, we note the well-established principle that oral or written statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding “are absolutely privileged, notwithstanding the motive with which they are made, so long as they are material and pertinent” to the litigation (Sinrod v. Stone, 20 A.D.3d 560, 561, 799 N.Y.S.2d 273; see Sexter & Warmflash, P.C. v. Margrabe, 38 A.D.3d 163, 171, 828 N.Y.S.2d 315; Mosesson v. Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm, 257 A.D.2d 381, 382, 683 N.Y.S.2d 88, lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 808, 691 N.Y.S.2d 382, 713 N.E.2d 417).
In determining whether an allegedly defamatory statement is pertinent and material to a judicial proceeding, the court must accord the statement an “ ‘extremely liberal’ ” construction (Dworkin v. State of New York, 34 A.D.3d 1014, 1015, 825 N.Y.S.2d 296; see generally Andrews v. Gardiner, 224 N.Y. 440, 445, 121 N.E. 341). Here, the statements by plaintiff, plaintiff's daughter, the stepfather, and plaintiff's friend with respect to the impact that the incident had on plaintiff's daughter unquestionably were pertinent and material to the criminal proceeding.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
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.
Decided: March 14, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)