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.
— Sabharwal & Finkel, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Sir Martin Sorrell, Defendant–Respondent.
_
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Cynthia S. Kern, J.), entered July 22, 2013, dismissing the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered May 13, 2013, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
In this action for defamation, plaintiffs, a law firm and its two members, allege that defendant, the chief executive of a party named as a defendant in a law suit brought by plaintiffs on behalf of their client, NDTV, defamed them in an interview conducted by a journalist in India and published in an online Indian financial publication. Among the allegedly false and defamatory statements made by defendant were that the plaintiff firm is a two-lawyer, Florida-based law firm specializing in restaurant law, that it accepted cases on a contingency basis, and that it broached the topic of settlement with their client's adversaries in an attempt to “extort” money from them.
The motion Court properly found that plaintiffs failed to state a valid cause of action for defamation. Given the overall context in which the statements were made, a reasonable reader would conclude that they constitute hyperbole and convey non-actionable opinions about the merits of the lawsuit and the motivation of NDTV's attorneys, rather than statements of fact (see Mann v. Abel, 10 NY3d 271, 276 [2008], cert. denied 555 U.S. 1170 [2009]; Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 294 [1986]; Ava v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 64 AD3d 407, 412–413 [1st Dept 2009], 14 NY3d 702 [2009] ).
Dismissal of the defamation claim also requires dismissal of the tortious interference claim, since that is the basis for the allegation that defendant's conduct was “otherwise unlawful” (see Phillips v. Carter, 58 AD3d 528, 528 [1st Dept 2009] ).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 1238 8 1238 9
Decided: May 06, 2014
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)