Opinion
13424, 150293/10, 13423
11-06-2014
Michael FLOMENHAFT, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JACOBY & MEYERS, LLP, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
The Flomenhaft Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Stephen D. Chakwin, Jr. of counsel), for appellant. Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, New York (Katie M. Lachter of counsel), for respondents.
The Flomenhaft Law Firm, PLLC, New York (Stephen D. Chakwin, Jr. of counsel), for appellant.
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, New York (Katie M. Lachter of counsel), for respondents.
ANDRIAS, J.P., SAXE, RICHTER, GISCHE, JJ.
Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered January 7, 2014, which granted plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue defendants' motion to dismiss the second cause of action for slander per se, and upon reargument, modified the prior order, same court and Justice, entered June 24, 2013, to reinstate the second cause of action as against defendant Sharon A. Scanlan, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the second cause of action as against all defendants, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the June 24, 2013 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.
The court properly reinstated the slander per se claim against defendant Scanlan. However the claim should have been reinstated as against all defendants, since plaintiff's allegations that some of the slanderous statements were made “[b]etween December 28, 2009 and January 31, 2010” was sufficient to satisfy the specificity required for a claim alleging defamation (see Herlihy v. Metropolitan Museum of Art , 214 A.D.2d 250, 261, 633 N.Y.S.2d 106 [1st Dept.1995] ).
Plaintiff's demand for punitive damages cannot be sustained, since the allegations do not rise to a level “of such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations” (Weiss v. Lowenberg, 95 A.D.3d 405, 407, 944 N.Y.S.2d 27 [1st Dept.2012] ; Morsette v. The Final Call, 309 A.D.2d 249, 253–255, 764 N.Y.S.2d 416 [1st Dept.2003], appeal dismissed 5 N.Y.3d 756, 801 N.Y.S.2d 248, 834 N.E.2d 1258 [2005] ).We have considered the parties' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.