Opinion
October 17, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, inasmuch as the conflicting evidence submitted in relation to the motion raised triable issues of fact. Specifically, a question exists, inter alia, with respect to whether the allegedly defamatory remarks made by the defendant were uttered within the scope of his official duties as a Village Trustee, an inquiry which is relevant to his proffered defense of absolute privilege (see generally, Clark v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 613). Furthermore, an issue exists concerning whether the statements were made with actual malice so as to defeat the defense of qualified privilege (see generally, Liberman v Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429; Toker v. Pollak, 44 N.Y.2d 211). In view of the foregoing, summary judgment is inappropriate on the present record. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.