Opinion
August 24, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that some of the challenged statements are not susceptible of a defamatory connotation ( see, James v. Gannett Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415, 419-420; see also, Aronson v. Wiersma, 65 N.Y.2d 592).
The statements contained in the third and fourth causes of action, which were published to officials at the New York and Connecticut Insurance Departments, arguably raise a claim sounding in defamation. However, those statements were subject to an absolute privilege ( see, Julien J. Studley, Inc. v. Lefrak, 50 A.D.2d 162, 164, affd 41 N.Y.2d 881; see also, Wiener v. Weintraub, 22 N.Y.2d 330; Le Sannom Bldg. Corp. v. Dudek, 177 A.D.2d 390). To the extent that those statements may have been published to officials or members of the defendant corporate association, those individuals shared a common interest, making such publication subject to a qualified privilege for which no sufficient showing of malice has been made ( see, Liberman v. Gelstein, 80 N.Y.2d 429, 436-437; Stukuls v. State of New York, 42 N.Y.2d 272, 278-279).
The court correctly dismissed the conspiracy claim ( see, Walters v. Pennon Assocs., 188 A.D.2d 596; see also, Jones v. Gelles, 125 A.D.2d 794, 795). It also properly determined that the remaining causes of action failed to state claims independent of the nonactionable defamation claims.
Accordingly, the complaint was properly dismissed in its entirety.
O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.