Opinion
2001-10179
Argued September 12, 2002.
October 15, 2002.
In an action to recover damages for defamation per se, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered November 1, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendants Bruce Diamond, Review-Press Reporter, a/k/a Review Press, Journal News, and Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc., to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them and, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Sheila R. Clarke, Leslie B. Maron, Bill Williams, a/k/a William Williams, and Village of Tuckahoe.
Vivian L. Hausch, White Plains, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Wade Clark Mulcahy, New York, N.Y. (Mary-Therese Rizzo of counsel), for respondents Sheila R. Clarke, Leslie B. Maron, Bill Williams, a/k/a Will Williams, and Village of Tuckahoe.
Satterlee Stephens Burke Burke, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Mark A. Fowler and Ann B. Carroll of counsel), for respondents Bruce Diamond, Review Press Reporter, a/k/a Review Press, Journal News, and Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc.
Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, that portion of the notice of appeal which purports to be from so much of the order as, sua sponte, dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Sheila R. Clarke, Leslie B. Maron, Bill Williams, a/k/a William Williams, and Village of Tuckahoe, is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal that portion of the order is granted (see CPLR 5701[a][2], [c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff failed to plead the alleged defamation in accordance with CPLR 3016(a). Unlike the case of Pappalardo v. Westchester Rockland Newspapers ( 101 A.D.2d 830, affd for reasons stated 64 N.Y.2d 862), in this case, perusal of the newspaper articles the plaintiff annexed to her complaint does not reveal the allegedly defamatory material. In this situation, the plaintiff must set forth the specific statements that allegedly were defamatory. However, she failed to do so.
In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions.
ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, O'BRIEN and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.