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.
Lynsi Smigo, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NYP Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, Collins Communications, Inc., etc., et al., Defendants-Respondents.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered March 17, 2010, which granted the motion of defendants Collins Communications Inc. and Steven P. Dowsett a/k/a Chaunce Hayden (Hayden) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly dismissed the causes of action alleging slander per se and a violation of Civil Rights Law § 77. Plaintiff maintained that defendant Hayden committed slander per se by telling someone at the New York Post that he had viewed a video showing plaintiff having sex with a public figure. However, once defendants moved for summary judgment and submitted Hayden's affidavit in which he stated that he had told an employee of the paper that he had not seen the alleged tape of plaintiff, the burden then shifted to plaintiff to establish that he had indeed uttered the words quoted in a Post article to a third party by competent evidence, which plaintiff failed to do (see Rowe v. Washburne, 62 App.Div. 131, 132 [1901] ).
Since the article published in Steppin' Out Magazine and authored by Hayden does not contain any material that could be considered defamatory as to plaintiff, it cannot be shown that defendants Collins Communications and Hayden were negligent in publishing the story (cf. Krauss v. Globe Intl., 251 A.D.2d 191 [1998] ). Thus, the dismissal of the remaining causes of action was appropriate.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
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.
Docket No: 4088
Decided: January 20, 2011
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)