Opinion
2002-10762.
December 29, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for defamation, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 11, 2002, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging defamation.
Charles Dun-zheng Yan, Flushing, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Grotta, Glassman Hoffman, P.A., New York, N.Y. (Stephen Fuchs and Dan Messeloff of counsel), for respondent.
Before: GLORIA GOLDSTEIN and WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Truth is an absolute defense to a cause of action based on defamation ( see Carlton v. Nassau County Police Dept., 306 A.D.2d 365; Heins v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Greenport, 237 A.D.2d 570; Jung Hee Lee Han v. State of New York, 186 A.D.2d 536). In support of his motion for summary judgment, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, that the alleged defamatory statements made by him regarding the plaintiff were true by submitting excerpts of the plaintiff's deposition testimony. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
In any event, the alleged defamatory statements were protected by a qualified privilege, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the statements were made with actual malice ( see Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or unnecessary to address in light of the foregoing.
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.