Opinion
423 117716/09.
03-08-2016
Law Offices of Michael A. Haskel, Mineola (Brandon M. Zlotnick of counsel), for appellants. Matalon Shweky Elman PLLC, New York (Howard I. Elman of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of Michael A. Haskel, Mineola (Brandon M. Zlotnick of counsel), for appellants.
Matalon Shweky Elman PLLC, New York (Howard I. Elman of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered January 7, 2015, dismissing the complaint pursuant to an order, same court and Justice, entered November 14, 2014, which granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The motion court correctly dismissed plaintiffs' slander claims. Given the context in which the alleged statements were made, a reasonable listener would conclude that they conveyed nonactionable opinions, rather than statements of fact (see Mann v. Abel, 10 N.Y.3d 271, 276, 856 N.Y.S.2d 31, 885 N.E.2d 884 2008, cert. denied 555 U.S. 1170, 129 S.Ct. 1315, 173 L.Ed.2d 584 2009; Steinhilber v. Alphonse, 68 N.Y.2d 283, 294, 508 N.Y.S.2d 901, 501 N.E.2d 550 1986 ). Defendant provided the probate petition, which included a substantially lower value for the property than the sale price at the closing, as the factual basis to support his alleged statements at the closing that plaintiffs had signed and filed the perjurious and fraudulent probate petition, and the statements do not suggest the existence of undisclosed facts (see e.g. Saint David's Sch. v. Hume, 101 A.D.3d 582, 957 N.Y.S.2d 52 1st Dept.2012 ). Thus, the slander per se claim fails. Similarly, plaintiffs' slander of title claim fails, since the record shows that defendant's statements were not made with reckless disregard for the truth (see Kiam v. Park & 66th Corp., 87 A.D.3d 887, 929 N.Y.S.2d 240 1st Dept.2011, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 809, 944 N.Y.S.2d 479, 967 N.E.2d 704 2012 ).
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, RICHTER, JJ., concur.