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.
Robert CONCIATORI, appellant, v. Peter LONGWORTH, et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals, from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), entered December 19, 1997, which granted the separate motions of the defendants Peter Longworth and Foley, Smit, O'Boyle and Weisman, and the defendants CIGNA Companies Insurance Company of North America and Janice Bogner for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them and denied his cross motion to amend the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered March 19, 1998, which dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a] [1] ).
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claim of defamation insofar as asserted against the defendant Peter Longworth, an attorney, and his law firm, the defendant Foley, Smit, O'Boyle and Weisman. The allegedly defamatory statement which forms the basis for that claim was made by Longworth while representing the defendant CIGNA Companies Insurance Company of North America (hereinafter Cigna) at a Workers' Compensation Board hearing, and the statement was related to the subject of the hearing, namely the payment of disputed medical bills for services purportedly rendered by the plaintiff. As such, the statement was absolutely privileged (see, Marsh v. Ellsworth, 50 N.Y. 309, 311-312; Romeo v. Village of Fishkill, 248 A.D.2d 700, 670 N.Y.S.2d 772; Allan & Allan Arts v. Rosenblum, 201 A.D.2d 136, 138-140, 615 N.Y.S.2d 410; Fowler v. Conforti, 194 A.D.2d 394, 598 N.Y.S.2d 782; Hammer v. Berg, 193 A.D.2d 716, 597 N.Y.S.2d 740; Grasso v. Mathew, 164 A.D.2d 476, 564 N.Y.S.2d 576).
The defendants Janice Bogner and Cigna met their initial burden of establishing their entitlement to summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff's claim of defamation insofar as asserted against them, by demonstrating that the allegedly defamatory statement was made by Bogner while acting within the scope of her employment with Cigna and in relation to the matter before the Workers' Compensation Board. As such, the statement was qualifiedly privileged (see, Herlihy v. Metropolitan Museum of Art, 214 A.D.2d 250, 633 N.Y.S.2d 106; Garson v. Hendlin, 141 A.D.2d 55, 532 N.Y.S.2d 776). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the alleged defamatory statement was made by Bogner with malice, since the only evidence in that regard is the plaintiff's own conclusory allegations based on suspicion, conjecture, and surmise (see, Handlin v. Burkhart, 101 A.D.2d 850, 851, 476 N.Y.S.2d 164, affd. 66 N.Y.2d 678, 496 N.Y.S.2d 422, 487 N.E.2d 279). Therefore, the motion of Bogner and Cigna for summary judgment was properly granted.
The plaintiff's claim alleging prima facie tort was properly dismissed because he failed to plead special damages with the requisite particularity (see, Constant v. Hallmark Cards, 172 A.D.2d 641, 642, 568 N.Y.S.2d 441). His claim alleging tortious interference with contractual relations was also properly dismissed because he failed to show that the defendants intentionally procured the breach of a contract by making the alleged defamatory statement (see, Velazquez v Lackmann Food Servs. at Old Country Rd., 251 A.D.2d 495, 674 N.Y.S.2d 413).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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.
Decided: March 01, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)