Opinion
September 20, 1976
In an action for libel and invasion of privacy, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 16, 1975, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. No fact findings were presented for review. In view of the fact that the words complained of are not libelous per se, the first cause of action for libel must be dismissed for failure to adequately plead special damages (see Spring Joint Venture v Fairchild Pub., 33 A.D.2d 515; Bishop v New York Times Co., 233 N.Y. 446, 452; Terwilliger v Wands, 17 N.Y. 54, 60-61; Beach v Ranney, 2 Hill 309, 312; Drug Research Corp. v Curtis Pub. Co., 7 N.Y.2d 435, 441). Similarly, the remaining cause of action for invasion of privacy must fail because the news articles complained of merely reported, albeit erroneously, plaintiff's role in a newsworthy event (see Koussevitzky v Allen, Towne Heath, Inc., 188 Misc. 479, 482-484, affd 272 App. Div. 759). We also hold that the allegations contained in the complaint do not make out a cause of action for prima facie tort (see Bohm v Holzberg, 47 A.D.2d 764). Martuscello, Acting P.J., Latham, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.