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.
Robert M. SLADE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered April 2, 1998, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's second cause of action for defamation for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The allegedly defamatory statement-that plaintiff's employment with defendant insurance company was terminated not because of his sales practices but for insubordination in not attending a meeting called by his superior-is a protected expression of opinion based on a disclosed fact (see, Angel v. Levittown Union Free School Dist. No. 5., 171 A.D.2d 770, 773, 567 N.Y.S.2d 490). Even if the statement were considered factual in nature, it would still not be actionable, first, because it is not defamatory per se and therefore requires allegations of special damages, absent here (see, supra, at 773, 567 N.Y.S.2d 490, citing Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592, 493 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 483 N.E.2d 1138), and, second, because plaintiff's pleadings admit that it is true that he did not attend a “mandatory” meeting called by his superior (see, Silver v. Mohasco Corp., 94 A.D.2d 820, 822, 462 N.Y.S.2d 917, affd. 62 N.Y.2d 741, 476 N.Y.S.2d 822, 465 N.E.2d 361). To the extent plaintiff argues that the real reason he was terminated was not because he failed to attend the meeting but because he was being used as a scapegoat to placate insurance regulators who were accusing defendant and its sales agents of deceptive sales practices, plaintiff's cause of action, if any, would not be for defamation.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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: November 10, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)