Konrad v. Brown
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*546The motion court correctly found that defendant’s allegedly defamatory statements in his letter to the editor were either not susceptible to a defamatory meaning, true or substantially true or pure opinion. The assertion that plaintiff had made a false statement before an administrative tribunal was substantially true, as shown by the video and transcript of the hearing; this was a complete defense (see Panghat v New York Downtown Hosp., 85 AD3d 473 [2011]). Considered as a whole, in context and based on its tone and apparent purpose (see Sandals Resorts Intl. Ltd. v Google, Inc., 86 AD3d 32,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Steinhilber v. AlphonseNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Huggins v. MooreNew York Court of Appeals · 1999
- Guerrero v. CarvaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Kipper v. NYP Holdings Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2009
- Sandals Resorts International Ltd. v. Google, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Stepanov v. Dow Jones & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Omansky v. PenningAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Moreira-Brown v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Moreira-Brown v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Omansky v. PenningAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.