MURPHY v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2009)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karen S. Smith, J.), entered July 8, 2008, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 The complaint failed to establish all the elements of defamation, inasmuch as plaintiff did not allege the time, the manner and the persons to whom the publication was made (Seltzer v. Fields, 20 A.D.2d 60, 64, 244 N.Y.S.2d 792 [1963], affd. 14 N.Y.2d 624, 249 N.Y.S.2d 174, 198 N.E.2d 368 [1964] ), nor did he identify the person who made it.   In any event, the statements allegedly issued by these defendants were contained in an investigative report and were protected by at least a qualified privilege (see Aquilone v. City of New York, 262 A.D.2d 13, 690 N.Y.S.2d 558 (1999), lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 819, 697 N.Y.S.2d 566, 719 N.E.2d 927 (1999)).   Moreover, the statements were substantially true and to the extent that they may not have been, plaintiff failed to offer evidence of malice or reckless disregard for the truth (see Foster v. Churchill, 87 N.Y.2d 744, 751-752, 642 N.Y.S.2d 583, 665 N.E.2d 153 [1996] ).

 As to the cause of action for tortious interference with prospective employment, plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a job offer, and failed to submit evidence sufficient to raise any issue of fact as to whether defendants acted with the sole purpose of harming him or engaged in any improper or unlawful conduct (see Glen Cove Assoc. v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., 240 A.D.2d 701, 659 N.Y.S.2d 316 [1997], lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 801, 666 N.Y.S.2d 563, 689 N.E.2d 533 [1997];  Nassau Diagnostic Imaging & Radiation Oncology Assoc. v. Winthrop-Univ. Hosp., 197 A.D.2d 563, 602 N.Y.S.2d 650 [1993], lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 756, 614 N.Y.S.2d 386, 637 N.E.2d 277 [1994] ).   Nor did plaintiff establish that he would have been offered the job “but for” defendants' alleged bad acts (see Union Car Adv. Co. v. Collier, 263 N.Y. 386, 401, 189 N.E. 463 [1934];  Slatkin v. Lancer Litho Packaging Corp., 33 A.D.3d 421, 822 N.Y.S.2d 507 [2006] ).

Finally, plaintiff's allegations that defendants violated § 803 and § 805 of the New York City Charter are without merit in that those provisions relating to the conduct of investigations and reports to individuals involved do not mandate that reports be kept confidential.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.