SIMPSON v. VILLAGE VOICE INC (2009)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered August 16, 2007, which granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 As to the City defendants, the complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements in CPLR 3016(a), and further failed to allege the time and manner of and persons to whom the publication was made (Seltzer v. Fields, 20 A.D.2d 60, 64, 244 N.Y.S.2d 792 [1963], 14 N.Y.2d 624, 249 N.Y.S.2d 174, 198 N.E.2d 368 [1964] ).   In any event, any statements allegedly made by those defendants were protected by qualified privilege, and plaintiff failed to defeat that defense by alleging malice (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 Village Voice defendants, the allegedly defamatory statements were either privileged under Civil Rights Law § 74 (see Freeze Right Refrig. & Air Conditioning Servs. v. City of New York, 101 A.D.2d 175, 475 N.Y.S.2d 383 [1984] ) or truthful (Silverman v. Clark, 35 A.D.3d 1, 12-13, 822 N.Y.S.2d 9 [2006] ), or constituted pure opinion (Mercado v. Shustek, 309 A.D.2d 646, 765 N.Y.S.2d 628 [2003];  see Gross v. New York Times Co., 82 N.Y.2d 146, 603 N.Y.S.2d 813, 623 N.E.2d 1163 [1993] ).