LIEBERMAN v. Anne Howell, Defendant. (1997)

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

Arthur M. LIEBERMAN, Individually and as a Partner on Behalf of Lieberman & Nowak, L.L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew S. HOFFMAN, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Anne Howell, Defendant.

Decided: May 22, 1997

Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and MILONAS, ELLERIN, TOM and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

Jonathan L. Rosner, for plaintiff-appellant. Andrew S. Hoffmann, pro se.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.), entered May 24, 1996, which granted defendants-respondents' motion to dismiss this defamation action as against them for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The offending statements contained in defendants' letter to plaintiff, advising that defendants had been retained to represent plaintiff's former employee, that the employee had possible claims against plaintiff in addition to those she had already brought before the New York City Commission on Human Rights, and describing the allegations behind those claims, are absolutely privileged (see, Caplan v. Winslett, 218 A.D.2d 148, 637 N.Y.S.2d 967; Grasso v. Mathew, 164 A.D.2d 476, 479, 564 N.Y.S.2d 576, lv dismissed 77 N.Y.2d 940, 569 N.Y.S.2d 613, 572 N.E.2d 54, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 855, 573 N.Y.S.2d 645, 578 N.E.2d 443).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

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Out of date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