From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Beck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1981
82 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

June 29, 1981


In an action to recover damages for libel and prima facie tort, defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Derounian, J.), dated November 19, 1980, which denied their motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7) to dismiss the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted, and complaint dismissed. The alleged libelous statement was contained in a "Report of Suspected Child Abuse or Maltreatment" written by defendant Beck, a clinical psychologist employed by the defendant school district. The prima facie tort cause of action against the school district is based upon the district's employment of, and failure to exercise due care over, defendant Beck. The charges contained in Beck's report were subsequently determined to be unfounded. Section 411 Soc. Serv. of the Social Services Law sets forth the purpose for reporting suspected cases of child abuse or maltreatment. Section 413 enumerates those individuals, including psychologists or school officials, who are under a statutory duty to report same. Section 419 provides immunity from civil liability when the report is made in good faith, which, under the statute, is presumed. Where, as here, a defendant's statements are presumptively privileged, either by statutory mandate or at common law, they are actionable only if the plaintiff can prove their falsehood and that the defendant was motivated by actual malice or ill will. Plaintiff, in support of this burden, must submit evidence; suspicion, surmise or accusations will not suffice. (Shapiro v Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 7 N.Y.2d 56, 61, 64.) Similarly, malice is an essential element of prima facie tort and where a complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to support a claim of malice, it is subject to dismissal. (Smith v County of Livingston, 69 A.D.2d 993.) As plaintiff has not presented any factual allegations of malice or ill will on the part of the defendants, his complaint must be dismissed. Damiani, J.P., Gibbons, Rabin and Margett, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Miller v. Beck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 29, 1981
82 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Miller v. Beck

Case Details

Full title:A. ANTHONY MILLER, Respondent, v. PHYLLIS BECK et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 29, 1981

Citations

82 A.D.2d 912 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Thomsen v. Kefalas

Although § 419 states on its face that either "willful misconduct" or "gross negligence" will defeat the…

Thomas v. Beth Israel Hosp. Inc.

The Court held that the infant's hospital chart was ample proof that a reasonable basis to suspect child…